HENRY KIDD, 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.
A defendant cannot collaterally attack a sentence that has not yet begun to be served if they are currently serving other sentences.
Defendant Henry Kidd appealed the denial of his motion to vacate a three-year sentence imposed in 1962, which he had not yet begun to serve. He was cu…
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 Collateral Attack On Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Henry Kidd, appeals a denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
In his motion, defendant attacks a three-year sentence which he says he has not begun to serve. This three-year sentence was imposed in September of 1962.
In his assignments of error, defendant states that he is in custody under previously imposed sentences totalling 17 years and that the three-year sentence under attack in his Rule 1.850 motion is a consecutive sentence to be served in the future when appellant has completed serving all of his sentences. Defendant in his motion for post-conviction relief has not attacked the validity of any sentence for which he is currently in custody.
The petitioner in a Rule 1.850 proceeding must attack the sentence which he is presently serving and he may, if he desires, simultaneously attack other sentences entered by the same court which are to be served consecutively. Holstein v. State, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 6.
A prisoner who fails to challenge the validity of the sentence for which he is currently in custody is not entitled to a hearing on the validity of another sentence as he would not be entitled to release even if he prevailed in his motion. Johnson v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So.2d 161; Escue v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 192 So.2d 524; and Yates v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 340.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. on the relation of the Borden Co. v. Langley, 184 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)
- Yates v. State, 199 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Roberts v. State, 199 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Holstein v. State, 205 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Escue v. State, 192 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)