¶1Affirmed. See Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion).
895 So. 2d 1127
Hankin v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 2, 2005
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2005-02-02
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2017
5 state decisions
Relies on Seabrooks v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2005-02-02
View the full empirical analysis of this case →