TONY C. MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2006-09-06
No. 4D06-2683
SHAHOOD, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
952 So. 2d 529 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2006) Negative Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order summarily denying the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, but not for the reasons specified by the state’s response below. Appellant’s motion was untimely filed pursuant to rule 3.850(b), as his sentence did not exceed the limits provided by law for a habitual violent felony offender; and any defect in the notice of intent to habitualize is a procedural error that does not result in an illegal sentence cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion, see Epps v. State, 912 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). A 3.800(a) motion is the only means by which he could challenge his sentence so many years after his conviction and sentence became final.

SHAHOOD, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Webster v. State, 998 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
    …ike this cost because the trial court failed to make the statutorily required inquiry into his ability to pay. See § 938.25, Fla. Stat. (2006). On remand, the trial court may reimpose this cost if it makes the necessary findings. See Floyd v. State, 952 So. 2d 529, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Glover v. State, 921 So. 2d 846, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Gunn v. State, 818 So. 2d 681, 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Finally, Webster asserts that the $373 in court costs should be stricken because the record does not contain a…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw