Summary
affirming trial court's denial of Hale claim where the 3.800 motion failed to point to record facts demonstrating crimes were committed in a single episode
Summary of this case from Downs v. StateOpinion
No. 1D00-2447.
Opinion filed February 9, 2001.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Brad Stetson, Judge.
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant, Samuel M. Pullins, appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion. He claims that his consecutive habitual offender sentence is illegal under Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993). This Court has held that Hale claims are cognizable in 3.800(a) motions if the claim can be established on the face of the record. See Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). As Appellant has failed to point to any part of the record which establishes that the crimes were committed in a single episode, we affirm the trial court's denial of relief. See Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Ervin, Booth and Allen, JJ., Concur.