Case Name: George GLISSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-11-17
Citations: 941 So. 2d 1243
Docket Number: No. 5D06-2259
Parties: George GLISSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: THOMPSON, SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 941
Pages: 1243–1244

Head Matter:
George GLISSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D06-2259.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 17, 2006.
George Glisson, Crawfordville, pro se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this rule 3.800(a) proceeding challenging Appellant's habitual offender sentence, the lower court summarily denied Appellant's motion because it concluded that an evidentiary hearing was required. We reverse. When the issue relates to the viability of a predicate offense to support habitualization, a rule 3.800(a) motion is the proper procedural vehicle to attack the conviction if evidence of the challenged predicate conviction was introduced into evidence at the sentencing. Bover v. State, 797 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2001). Here, Appellant alleges that a certified copy of the challenged predicate conviction was part of the record. Therefore, as the state properly concedes, the lower court should have determined if the conviction was part of the record and, if so, whether Appellant is correct on the merits.
We therefore reverse the lower court's order and remand this cause with directions that the lower court address the merits of Appellant's motion or provide record support to conclusively refute the allegations.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THOMPSON, SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.