Legal Opinion

Murph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 17, 2004No. 2D04-2085Published

1Opinion of the Court

FULMER, Judge.

Ernest C. Murph appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Murph claims his sentence violates double jeopardy because the enhancement of his sentence contains two punishments for one criminal episode. This claim is facially insufficient because Murph failed to explain the enhancement of his sentence and the two punishments. See Powell v. State, 841 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant failed to explain the basis of his claim). A motion…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  2. Powell v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API