PEDRO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the appellant's successive motion was barred by collateral estoppel and did not demonstrate manifest injustice.
Appellant filed a motion challenging his consecutive habitual felony offender sentences. The motion failed to adequately explain how the trial transcr…
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 Hale V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. Appellant’s successive motion was barred by collateral estoppel, and Appellant has not shown that application of the procedural bar will result in a manifest injustice. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla.2003).
Appellant’s motion failed to explain how the “trial transcript” would demonstrate an entitlement to relief. Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). A conclusory allegation that the answer lies somewhere in the “trial transcript” is not enough to satisfy the threshold allegation requirements of rule 3.800(a). Id. at 845.
Appellant has not identified record facts that show he is entitled to relief on his claim that his consecutive habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences violate Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993). Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In order to establish a sufficient claim of a violation of Hale in a 3.800(a) motion, Appellant must identify, with particularity, non-hearsay record documents and explain how they demonstrate that the crimes arose from a single erimi- nal episode. Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).
Neither of Appellant’s motions raising this issue has explained how anything in the trial transcript would demonstrate that his convictions for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and possession of contraband in prison arose from the same criminal episode. §§ 784.021, .07, Fla. Stat. (1991); § 944.47(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991).
As no manifest injustice is apparent, Appellant’s claim is barred by collateral estoppel.
STONE, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zawalski Edwards v. State, 162 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ant filing a rule 3.800(a) motion that demonstrates on the face of the record that juvenile convictions were used as predicate offenses to support his sentencing enhancements. See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1051 (Fla.2011); Martinez v. State, 976 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also Gonzalez v. State, 132 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur^…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 132 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…on him to demonstrate entitlement to relief from the face of the record. See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla.2011). Conclusory allegations are not enough to satisfy the threshold allegation requirements of rule 3.800(a). See Martinez v. State, 976 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). For these reasons, we affirm without prejudice to Defendant’s filing a rule 3.800(a) motion that establishes how the allegedly illegal sentence for count two, which was not served, affected his criminal history score and senten…
-
Sterling S. Pope, Jr. v. State, 7 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Martinez v. State, 976 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 991 So. 2d 387 (Fla.2008). POLEN, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Carroll Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)