From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 19, 2002
807 So. 2d 187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 1D01-2312

Opinion filed February 19, 2002.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. G. Robert Barron, Judge.

Appellant, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Karen Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence in which he alleged that he did not have the qualifying predicate offenses required to be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The trial court denied the motion as not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, such a claim is cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence if it is apparent from the face of the record that the requisite predicate felonies essential to qualify a defendant for habitualization do not exist as a matter of law. See Bover v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S652 (Fla. October 5, 2001). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether it is apparent from the face of the record that appellant did not have the requisite predicate felonies as a matter of law. See Johnson v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 651 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Overstreet v. State, 629 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1993).

BOOTH, MINER, KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Alloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 19, 2002
807 So. 2d 187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Alloway v. State

Case Details

Full title:DONALD ALLOWAY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Feb 19, 2002

Citations

807 So. 2d 187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

McDonald v. State

We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether it is apparent from the face of the record that…