Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2010 · …in order to allege a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, the appellant must allege: (1) he is serving an illegal sentence; (2) the error appears on the face of the record; and (3) how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief. at p. 308 ✓
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Carson v. State (fladistctapp, 2010-04-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carson v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
"In order to allege a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, the appellant must allege: (1) he is serving an illegal sentence; (2) the error appears on the face of the record; and (3) how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief." Lauramore v. State, 949 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Teague v. State, 26 So.3d 616, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Teague v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Lauramore v. State, 949 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martinez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Lauramore v. State, 949 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Harris v. State, 875 So.2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).
cited Cited "see" Ragan v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lauramore v. State, 949 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Taylor v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Lauramore v. State, 949 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Jones v. State, 894 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Speas v. State, 887 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carroll LAURAMORE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
1D06-4131.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb 16, 2007.
949 So. 2d 307
2007 WL 489465
Thomas.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

[*308] Carroll Lauramore, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

THOMAS, J.

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court's ruling.

Appellant asserts that his sentences for robbery and burglary are illegal under Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), which prohibits the imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences for multiple crimes arising from a single criminal episode. The trial court treated Appellant's motion as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 and denied it as untimely.

A Hale claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion if the motion is facially sufficient and the issue can be resolved from the face of the record. See Jackson v. State, 803 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In order to allege a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, the appellant must allege: (1) he is serving an illegal sentence; (2) the error appears on the face of the record; and (3) how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief. See Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Appellant's motion is facially insufficient, as he alleges neither how nor where the record demonstrates that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode. See Harris v. State, 875 So.2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that in the context of a Hale claim, the appellant must identify with particularity the non-hearsay record documents demonstrating that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode); Jackson, 803 So.2d at 845 (holding that a Hale claim alleging that the "trial transcripts" demonstrated the crimes occurred in a single criminal episode was facially insufficient where the motion did not allege "how" the transcripts showed this). We AFFIRM the trial court's ruling.

KAHN and POLSTON, JJ., concur.