Halfacre v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseAppellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to forty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to a term of twenty years because one of the prior judgments used to establish that Appellant was a habitual offender had been reversed on appeal. The next year, Appellant was found guilty of a separate robbery for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. Almost thirty years later, Appellant filed a pro se petition to correct sentence, alleging that his sentence of life imprisonment was illegal on its face and that his sentence of forty years’ imprisonment was facially invalid. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding that the life sentence and the forty-year sentence were within the range allowed by statute and were not facially illegal.
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.