SANCHEZ V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2001 LUIS SANCHEZ, Appellant, vs. ** ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. CASE NO. 3D01-2255 ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NOS. 94-39773 & 94-39774 ** Opinion filed September 26, 2001. An Appeal under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Maria E. Dennis, Judge. Luis Sanchez, in proper person. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE, GODERICH, and SHEVIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ., concur. Sanchez v. State Case No. 3D01-2255 COPE, J. (concurring). While the trial court was in error in saying that the appellant s claim was not cognizable by a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), see Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001), relief was properly denied because the offense of armed robbery is a first degree felony punishable imprisonment. See § 812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). habitualization was permissible. by life Accordingly, See Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1992).* * At the time of appellant s crimes, habitualization was not permissible for a life felony, but appellant is incorrect in saying that his offenses were life felonies. 2

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.