ROBERTO MIGUEL TORRES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A challenge to habitual offender status must be brought under Rule 3.850, not Rule 3.800(a), and is subject to the Rule 3.850 time limit.
Roberto Miguel Torres appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, arguing his habitual offender adjudication was improper because cer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Offender Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Miguel Torres appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He seeks to overturn his adjudication as a habitual offender, arguing that certified copies of his prior convictions were not introduced at the hearing, but the trial judge requested that they be filed after the hearing.
This court has held that a challenge to a habitual offender adjudication must be brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, not Rule 3.800(a), and is subject to the Rule 3.850 two-year time limit. See Bover v. State, 732 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), review granted, number 95,649 (Fla. Oct. 26, 1999); see also Moore v. State, 748 So. 2d 1094 (Fla.App. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2000). Contra Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc). The claim is time-barred.
Assuming arguendo that there is no procedural bar, the claim is without merit. We have taken judicial notice of this court’s file in Torres v. State, number 99-1413, which contains the original plea colloquy. During that colloquy, defendant admitted the existence of each of the convictions which the trial court relied on for habitualization. There was no objection to the procedure followed by the trial court. The failure to introduce certified copies at the hearing was entirely harmless and is not a basis for declaring the sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tory A. Morss v. State, 795 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“because copies of the convictions were not included in this record, we are unable to discern whether factors supporting habitualization existed”); Landreth v. State, 739 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); c.f Torres v. State, 751 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (failure to introduce certified copies of pri- or convictions harmless where no objection made). We accordingly reverse the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing. As in Boyd, the trial court, on remand, should permit the s…
-
Valenzuela v. State, 764 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…BARFIELD, C.J. AFFIRMED. The motion was time-barred. See Bover v. State, 732 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 743 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1999); Torres v. State, 751 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Bover v. State, 732 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Moore v. State, 748 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)