Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Powell v. State (fladistctapp, 2005-06-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Powell v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Sampson v. State, 798 So.2d 824, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(finding that the issue of a general notice of enhancement was not preserved for appellate review because the defendant did not argue that the notice was deficient); Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(stating that “[t]he proper vehicle to challenge the State’s alleged failure to properly seek habitual felony offender sentencing is a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) LaMar v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla.2001); Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lámar v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 2001); Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)).
discussed Cited "see" ROLAND P. MOLINA v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Murph v. State, 921 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)), for the proposition that the defendant's claim that his VCC sentence was illegal because he did not have the requisite prior convictions was cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence).
cited Cited "see" Murph v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see" Clayton v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hope v. State, 766 So.2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
cited Cited "see" Hill v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see" Bowen v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see" Pointer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Eric M. COOK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
2D02-1333.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 10, 2002.
816 So. 2d 773
Per Curiam.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published

PER CURIAM.

Eric Cook appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Cook has sought relief not available through a rule 3.800 motion, we affirm.

Cook pleaded no contest to one count of sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a church and one count of possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a church. The trial court subsequently sentenced Cook as a habitual felony offender. In his rule 3.800 motion, Cook asserts that he was not advised of the State's intent to seek habitual felony offender sentencing before he entered his plea and that the State never provided him with written notice of its intent to seek such enhanced sentencing. Therefore, according to Cook, his habitual felony sentence is illegal. The trial court denied Cook's motion on the basis that[*774] Cook's challenge was not to the substance of the sentence itself but, rather, was to the procedural process used in imposing the sentence. The trial court found that this type of challenge was inappropriate in the context of a rule 3.800 motion. This appeal followed.

[A] habitual offender sentence is illegal for purposes of rule 3.800(a) only if: (1) the terms or conditions of the sentence exceed those authorized by section 775.084 for the adjudicated offense, or (2) a prior offense essential to categorize the defendant as a habitual offender does not actually exist.

Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc). The proper vehicle to challenge the State's alleged failure to properly seek habitual felony offender sentencing is a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Id.

In this case, Cook does not deny that his habitual felony offender sentence is within the sentencing range provided by section 775.084, Florida Statutes (2001). Cook also does not deny that he had the qualifying predicate offenses for habitual felony offender sentencing. Because Cook's allegations do not establish that his habitual felony sentence is illegal for purposes of rule 3.800, the trial court properly denied the motion.

While we affirm the trial court's order in this case, our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Cook may have to file a properly sworn motion pursuant to rule 3.850 addressing this issue. Such motion shall not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

PARKER, SALCINES, and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.