BENJAMIN GADSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ., concur.
COPE, J.
(concurring).
One of the claims of defendant-appellant Benjamin Gadson is that his habitual offender sentences should not have been consecutive, as he contends that the three counts on which he was sentenced all arose from the same criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). The Hale decision was announced after the defendant’s sentences were imposed in 1991.
This particular claim had to be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and the present motion is time-barred as to that claim. See Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1999). Assuming that all three counts arose from the same criminal episode, the only avenue available to the defendant at this point would be an application for relief from the Pardon Board.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 905 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ith six counts of armed robbery. He was convicted of three counts of strong arm robbery and two counts of theft as lesser included offenses. On direct appeal, this court reversed for a new trial on account of a jury selection error. Miller v. State, 840 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). According to the defendant’s motion, on remand the State refiled the original armed robbery charges even though he [*982] had been acquitted of armed robbery and convicted of lesser included offenses. The defendant alleges that…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1999)