Case Name: Samuel M. PULLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-02-09
Citations: 777 So. 2d 451
Docket Number: No. 1D00-2447
Parties: Samuel M. PULLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 777
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Samuel M. PULLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D00-2447.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 9, 2001.
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER 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 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). As Appellant has failed to point to any part of the record which establishes that the crimes were committed in a single episode, we affirm the trial court's denial of relief. See Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
ERVIN, BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.