Legal Opinion
Pullins v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 9, 2001No. 1D00-2447PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
777 So.2d 451 (2001)
Samuel M. PULLINS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D00-2447.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
February 9, 2001.
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2Per curiam
Appellant, Samuel M. Pullins, appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion. He claims that his consecutive habitual offender sentence is illegal under Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). This Court has held that Hale claims are cognizable in 3.800(a) motions if the claim can be established on the face of the record. See Valdes v. State, 765…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Hale v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
- Baker v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
- Valdes v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
- Tillman v. SingletaryDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
4Cited by6 opinions
- Jackson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
- Theophile v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007
- Elliott v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009
- Johnson v. MooreDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
- Phipps v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.