From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooper v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 14, 2002
817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion

Summary of this case from Passmore v. State
See 9 Summaries

Opinion

No. 3D02-825.

May 15, 2002. Rehearing Denied June 14, 2002.

An appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Roberto M. Pineiro, Judge.

Terrance Cooper, in proper person.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE, FLETCHER and SHEVIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Terrance Cooper appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. First, defendant-appellant Cooper claims that the habitualization notice filed in his case was not sufficiently specific in indicating what portion of the habitual offender statute the State intended to pursue. A notice deficiency of this type does not render a sentence "illegal," for purposes of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Such a claim must be raised by motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Brown v. State, 813 So.2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Under Rule 3.850, this claim is time-barred.

Assuming for purposes of discussion that there were no procedural bar, the claim is in any event without merit. See Sampson v. State, 798 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Cooper v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 14, 2002
817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 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

Summary of this case from Passmore v. State

holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion

Summary of this case from Sinclair v. State

holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion

Summary of this case from Jefferson v. State

holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion

Summary of this case from Hankin v. State

holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion

Summary of this case from Peoples v. State

holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion

Summary of this case from Martin v. State

holding that a claim that a notice of intent to habitualize is not sufficiently specific must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion

Summary of this case from Reed v. State

pertaining to claims of improper notice for enhanced sentencing

Summary of this case from Ives v. State

In Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), this court concluded that a notice deficiency of this type is not an illegal sentence and therefore must be raised in a Motion For Post Conviction Relief pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The defendant's sentence became final on December 4, 1996.

Summary of this case from Reese v. State
Case details for

Cooper v. State

Case Details

Full title:TERRANCE COOPER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 14, 2002

Citations

817 So. 2d 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Zafora v. State

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (a claim of insufficient notice of…

Sinclair v. State

Affirmed. See Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that a claim that a notice of intent…

28 Citing Cases