Hartwell v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Palmer v. State

    240 So. 3d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

    In addition, the attached notice does not conclusively refute Palmer's allegation. While a copy of the notice was provided to counsel, it was not served on Palmer. No other records demonstrate whether Palmer had actual notice of the State's intent to seek an HFO sentence. See Hartwell v. State, 12 So.3d 892, 893 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (noting that "lack of written notice of habitualization can be harmless error if the defendant had actual notice"). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to include attachments to its order conclusively refuting Palmer's claims set forth above or to hold an evidentiary hearing.

  2. Hammond v. State

    34 So. 3d 58 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 47 times

    This alone might not be sufficient to preclude relief under Spera. See Hartwell v. State, 12 So.3d 892, 893 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Hammond filed an initial brief in this appeal. Patently aware that his claim was, however, insufficient and that the claim hat already been denied as such, Hammond did not. raise Spera or argue that he has any good faith basis for amending his motion to state a sufficient claim. The First District has held that if a defendant files a brief in a Rule 3.850 appeal and does not raise Spera, then any claim for relief under Spera is waived.