Angel Guzman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Angel Guzman v. State

155 So. 3d 1209, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 182, 2015 WL 71677

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 2015

Docket4D14-2940

StatusPublished

This text of 155 So. 3d 1209 (Angel Guzman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angel Guzman v. State, 155 So. 3d 1209, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 182, 2015 WL 71677 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. He claims that his twenty-year sentence for his violation of his youthful offender probation is illegal because the sentence exceeds the six-year cap for a “technical or nonsubstantive violation” as stated in section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2003).

We have reviewed our records for the defendant’s direct appeal in case number 4D07-4303. Guzman v. State, 994 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversing the summary denial of a motion to withdraw plea after sentencing). The defendant admitted the violations of probation which included, among other things, his *1210 commission of a murder in an unrelated case. Thus, the violation clearly was “substantive.” Moreover, in his plea agreement admitting to the violations, he acknowledged that he was facing up to sixty years in prison for the two counts in this case. In sum, the defendant’s claim in this rule 3.800 motion and appeal is frivolous.

We caution the defendant that further filing of frivolous or false claims may result in sanctions and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings. Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Leyva v. State, 127 So.3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Johnson v. State, 44 So.3d 198, 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. He claims that his twenty-year sentence for his violation of his youthful offender probation is illegal because the sentence exceeds the six-year cap for a “technical or nonsubstantive violation” as stated in section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2003).

We have reviewed our records for the defendant’s direct appeal in case number 4D07-4303. Guzman v. State, 994 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversing the summary denial of a motion to withdraw plea after sentencing). The defendant admitted the violations of probation which included, among other things, his *1210 commission of a murder in an unrelated case. Thus, the violation clearly was “substantive.” Moreover, in his plea agreement admitting to the violations, he acknowledged that he was facing up to sixty years in prison for the two counts in this case. In sum, the defendant’s claim in this rule 3.800 motion and appeal is frivolous.

We caution the defendant that further filing of frivolous or false claims may result in sanctions and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings. Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Leyva v. State, 127 So.3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Johnson v. State, 44 So.3d 198, 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 3d 1209, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 182, 2015 WL 71677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angel-guzman-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack