ROBERT ANTONIO BURNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1999-06-18
No. 99-00401
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
768 So. 2d 1098 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Antonio Burnett filed a postcon-viction motion challenging his 1990 consecutive habitual felony offender sentences. He claimed these sentences were imposed in contravention of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). Burnett’s unsworn motion was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The issue raised in Burnett’s motion, however, is not cognizable for a rule 3.800(a) proceeding, and must be raised pursuant to rule 3.850. See Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1999).

Even if we treated Burnett’s motion as having been filed under rule 3.850, he still would not be entitled to any relief. Burnett filed his motion outside the window for seeking relief under Hale. The window for Hale claims closed two years after August 16, 1995, the date of the mandate in State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995) Affirmed. See Dixon, 730 So. 2d 265. Burnett filed his motion in May 1998.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Williams v. State, 933 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
    …session of drug paraphernalia, and giving a false name, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Because appellant’s equal protection argument was not raised below, it was not preserved for appeal. See McCellan v. State, 768 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We have examined the facts adduced at the suppression hearing, and we find that fundamental error did not occur. AFFIRMED. BARFIELD, VAN NORTWICK, AND LEWIS, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw