Summary
affirming without prejudice to any right Harris might have to file a facially sufficient motion under rule 3.800 alleging that his consecutive habitual violent felony offender sentences were illegal because the offenses were part of a single criminal episode and identifying with particularity the nonhearsay record documents, such as a trial transcript, that support his claim
Summary of this case from Cappelletti v. StateOpinion
Case No. 2D02-4955.
Opinion filed May 2, 2003.
Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Barbara Fleischer, Judge.
Anthony Harris Jr. appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Harris claims that his consecutive habitual felony and habitual violent felony offender sentences are illegal. He may have a valid claim based on Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), which precludes under all circumstances the imposition of consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode for habitual felony or habitual violent felony offenders. See State v. Hill, 660 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 1995) (rejecting the claim that Hale only applies to minimum mandatory portions of enhanced habitual offender sentences). However, Harris does not allege that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode or that his claim can be determined without resort to extra-record facts. Therefore, his claim is facially insufficient. See Barron v. State, 827 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Steelman v. State, 801 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We affirm without prejudice to whatever right Harris may have to file a facially sufficient Hale claim under rule 3.800(a).
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.