context: Appellant's failure to raise these claims on direct appeal did not prevent him from doing so in the instant 3.850 motion.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 580 So.2d 638, 640
citation_a.parenthetical: although contention that defendant did not qualify as a habitual offender could have been raised on direct appeal, defendant could raise this claim in a subsequent 3.850 proceeding, because the rule expressly provides that a motion to vacate a sentence which exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time
citation_a.sentence: See Debose v. State, 580 So.2d 638, 640 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although contention that defendant did not qualify as a habitual offender could have been raised on direct appeal, defendant could raise this claim in a subsequent 3.850 proceeding, because the rule expressly provides that a motion to vacate a sentence which exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 579 So.2d 810, 811
citation_b.parenthetical: a challenge to an illegal sentence may be brought at any time
citation_b.sentence: See also Ospina v. State, 579 So.2d 810, 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (a challenge to an illegal sentence may be brought at any time).