From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steelman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 26, 2001
801 So. 2d 960 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 2D01-2304

Opinion filed October 26, 2001. Rehearing Denied November 27, 2001

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P.9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge.


Leonard Steelman timely appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). His only claim is that he was sentenced in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993). This claim is facially insufficient as a rule 3.800(a) motion because he failed to assert that the determination of whether the offenses were part of the same criminal episode could be made without resort to extra-record facts. See Young v. State, 787 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We, therefore, affirm without prejudice to any right Mr. Steelman might have to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a).

Affirmed.

BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.


Summaries of

Steelman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 26, 2001
801 So. 2d 960 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Steelman v. State

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD STEELMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 26, 2001

Citations

801 So. 2d 960 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. State

Because Johnson failed to allege that his claim could be determined without resort to extra-record facts, his…

Harris v. State

Therefore, his claim is facially insufficient. See Barron v. State, 827 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002);…