Skip to main content

Judge v. State

Citations

  • 596 So. 2d 73
  • 1991 WL 170839

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that rule 3.800(a) motion cannot be employed to reexamine whether procedures followed in imposing sentence comport with statutory law and due process
  • concluding that the issue of whether there was a failure to give notice of intent to seek a habitual offender sanction is not properly raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion
  • holding, “[i]n its narrowest functional definition, ‘fundamental error’ describes an error that can be remedied on direct appeal, even though the appellant made no contemporaneous objection in the trial court . . .”
  • discussing how relief from a procedural error at sentencing might be available under rule 3.850 if the movant can show prejudice
  • unless a defendant is classified as a habitual offender, a sentence is illegal if it imposes more than five years incarceration for a third-degree felony
  • an habitual offender sentence is illegal if it is not a sentence that the trial court could, as a matter of law, have imposed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

140 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.