From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Massey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 21, 1994
643 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

No. 94-1849.

October 21, 1994.

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County; Gayle S. Graziano, Judge.

James B. Massey, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


The defendant has alleged in a Rule 3.800(a) proceeding that his consecutive habitual offender sentences are illegal citing Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993) and Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla. 1993). The trial court summarily denied the defendant's motion on the basis that while the defendant was found to be a habitual offender the court did not impose enhanced sentences under the habitual offender statute. However, the trial court did not attach any portions of the record to support the summary denial of the defendant's motion. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach those portions of the record which refute the defendant's claims. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.140(g).

Hale has been applied retroactively in 3.800(a) proceedings. See Callaway v. State, 642 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAUKSCH, COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Massey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Oct 21, 1994
643 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

Massey v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES B. MASSEY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Oct 21, 1994

Citations

643 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)