ROBERT WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ROBERT WATSON, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
828 So. 2d 1054
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Robert Watson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Watson claimed that he received consecutive habitual felony offender sentences in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). Because Watson failed to allege that it can be determined from the face of the record that the sentences are illegal, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to any right that Watson may have to file a facially sufficient claim. See Johnson v. State, 809 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wachter v. State, 868 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ecord facts.” West v. State, 825 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). This court has held that to present a facially sufficient 3.800(a) Hale claim, the mov-ant must allege that the claim can be determined from the face of the record. See Watson v. State, 828 So. 2d 1054, 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). However, in Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137, 141 (Fla.2002), the supreme court held that a trial court cannot rely on hearsay documentation that is contained in the trial court record, such as a police report, to determine…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Johnson v. State, 809 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)