Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so.”
19 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cimaglia v. State (fladistctapp, 2012-01-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Cimaglia v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
cjourts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Dominguez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ourts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy 678 were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Vanderblomen v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
Brooks, 969 So.2d at 243 n. 8 (quoting Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Finelli, 780 So.2d 31 (Fla.2001) (indicating that a defendant may challenge an habitual offender sentence by a rule 3.850 motion if the predicate conviction is later reversed on appeal); Bozarth v. State, 789 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a rule 3.850 motion is the proper means by which to challenge an illegal sentence when the appellant relies on extra-record facts); Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that the courts have authority to treat a rule 3.800(a) motion as a rule 3.850 motion if it would be in the interest of justice …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
“The courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so.” Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Atwood v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Vanderblomen v. State, 709 So.2d 144, 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); McGowan v. State, 586 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stoutamire v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
However, "[t]he courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so." Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
discussed Cited "see" Teague v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (on motion for rehearing).
discussed Cited "see" Brooks v. State
Fla. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (stating that "courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so" and finding that the "[trial court] should have treated Hall's [3.800] motion as if filed pursuant to rule 3.850"); see also Sage v. State, 890 So.2d 1277 , 1277 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (noting that the trial court treated Sage's 3.800(a) motion seeking removal of his sexual predator status as a motion filed under 3.850); Nesbitt v. State, 884 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("B…
cited Cited "see" Schebel v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (on reh'g); Young v. State, 619 So.2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); DeSantis v. State, 400 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
David Lee HALL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
93-2585.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sep 14, 1994.
643 So. 2d 635
Per Curiam.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

David Lee Hall, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Richard Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellee's motion for rehearing, we withdraw this court's previous opinion in this case, which was issued on April 12, 1994, and published at 19 Fla. L. Weekly D837, and substitute the following opinion therefor.

[*636] Appellant, David Lee Hall, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. As grounds for relief, Hall alleged his sentence was unlawful in that he was not furnished with notice of intent to habitualize prior to entry of his plea, as mandated by Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1993).

Although styled pursuant to rule 3.800, the scope of which is relatively narrow, Hall's motion raises an issue more appropriate for consideration under rule 3.850. The courts have the authority to treat prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so. Fenter v. State, 632 So.2d 685, 686 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). See also Arnett v. State, 591 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); and Priest v. State, 483 So.2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In the instant case, the court below should have treated Hall's motion as if filed pursuant to rule 3.850.[1]See Young v. State, 619 So.2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); DeSantis v. State, 400 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

We reverse and remand this cause with directions to attach those portions of the files and records conclusively showing that Hall is entitled to no relief, or, if the record does not conclusively contradict the allegations, to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to whether the requirements of Ashley were complied with prior to entry of Hall's plea. If they were not, then Hall's habitual offender sentence is illegal and he must be permitted to withdraw his plea or be sentenced within the guidelines.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

ERVIN, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

1 Our review of the motion reveals that it complies with the technical requirements of rule 3.850, including the requirement that the motion be made under oath. Timeliness is not at issue inasmuch as the motion was filed within two years after judgment and sentence became final subsequent to direct appeal. See Myers v. State, 539 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).