Childers v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2005
STERLING CHILDERS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D03-4498
[August 24, 2005]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus. We redesignate his petition as a Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief and affirm. See Baker v.
State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 2004) (Habeas corpus may not be
used as a substitute for motion seeking postconviction relief pursuant to
rule 3.850.).
In two separate cases, appellant was found guilty of two strong arm
robberies of the same convenience store, and he was sentenced to
consecutive thirty-year sentences with consecutive fifteen-year minimum
mandatory sentences as a habitual offender. This court affirmed appeals
and the denials of rule 3.850 motions in both cases. Childers v. State ,
782 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Childers v. State , 754 So. 2d
44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
Appellant argues that consecutive habitual offender sentences are
improper in this case, because the two robberies should have been
considered part of the same criminal episode. See Hale v. State , 630 So.
2d 521, 526 (Fla. 1993). This argument is without merit because the
robberies occurred on different dates. In addition, it should have been
raised in appellant’s rule 3.850 motions. See Burgess v. State , 831 So.
2d 137, 139 (Fla. 2002) (Hale issue must be raised within two years in a
rule 3.850 motion).
We have considered the remainder of appellant’s arguments and find
them to be without merit. Affirmed.
WARNER , K LEIN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
*
*
*
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman,
Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 98-6032 CF10A and 98-8081 CF10A.
Steven Wisotsky, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
No appearance required for appellee.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
