Aponte v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aponte v. State

216 So. 3d 685, 2017 WL 1040741, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3586

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 2017

DocketCase No. 2D15-4245

StatusPublished

This text of 216 So. 3d 685 (Aponte 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

Aponte v. State, 216 So. 3d 685, 2017 WL 1040741, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3586 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Jose Aponte appeals the order denying his June 2015 motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We conclude that the postconviction court did not err in denying relief and affirm. However, we note that Mr. Aponte raised an issue on appeal that he had not raised in his rule 3.800(a) motion. Therefore, we cannot address the issue. See Derrico v. State, 924 So.2d 970, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[T]his court cannot address claims asserted for the first time on appeal.”). Our decision is without prejudice to any right Mr. Aponte may have to file a facially sufficient motion under rule 3.800(a) challenging the imposition of the special conditions of sex offender probation in circuit case number CF07-7464, See Villanueva v. State, 200 So.3d 47, 53-64 (Fla. 2016); Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734, 734-35 (Fla. 1993). If Mr. Aponte files such a motion, the postconviction court should not consider the claim as successive to the claims raised in the rule 3.800(a) motion at issue in this appeal.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Jose Aponte appeals the order denying his June 2015 motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We conclude that the postconviction court did not err in denying relief and affirm. However, we note that Mr. Aponte raised an issue on appeal that he had not raised in his rule 3.800(a) motion. Therefore, we cannot address the issue. See Derrico v. State, 924 So.2d 970, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[T]his court cannot address claims asserted for the first time on appeal.”). Our decision is without prejudice to any right Mr. Aponte may have to file a facially sufficient motion under rule 3.800(a) challenging the imposition of the special conditions of sex offender probation in circuit case number CF07-7464, See Villanueva v. State, 200 So.3d 47, 53-64 (Fla. 2016); Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734, 734-35 (Fla. 1993). If Mr. Aponte files such a motion, the postconviction court should not consider the claim as successive to the claims raised in the rule 3.800(a) motion at issue in this appeal.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 So. 3d 685, 2017 WL 1040741, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aponte-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack