Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

806 So. 2d 627

Brown v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 6, 2002

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-02-06

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 2005

2 state decisions

Relies on Sowashee Venture v. EB, Inc. · 630 So. 2d 521 - Hale v. State · Valdes v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-02-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant Andre Lamar Brown appeals from an order entered in the circuit court summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

¶2Appellant challenges his habitual felony offender consecutive 30 year sentences on counts (1) (armed burglary of conveyance) and (2) (armed burglary of occupied conveyance) and his 30 year habitual felony offender sentence on count (4)(attempted armed robbery) consecutive to count (2). The record establishes that they all arose from a single criminal episode.

¶3The trial court summarily denied this motion on the grounds that it was untimely under rule 3.850, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, and that it addressed challenges previously raised in the trial court. However, appellant did not seek relief under rule 8.850, but rather under rule 3.800, which is proper for a Hale challenge, when the error is apparent on the face of the record. Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Further, appellant did not previously raise a Hale challenge to his sentences.

¶4We reverse on the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). See also Holsworth v. State, 796 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

¶5We remand the case with directions that the sentences on counts 1, 2 and 4 be imposed to run concurrently.

KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
/806/so2d/627 · .json · Public domain