Askew v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Askew v. State

800 So. 2d 664, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15678, 2001 WL 1359103

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-3135

StatusPublished

This text of 800 So. 2d 664 (Askew 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

Askew v. State, 800 So. 2d 664, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15678, 2001 WL 1359103 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Charles Askew challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

Askew filed his motion pursuant to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999). In the motion, Askew sought to withdraw his plea on the basis that it was involuntarily entered. In denying the motion, the trial court relied on Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 121 S.Ct. 1578, 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001). However, in Daniels the Supreme Court held that a defendant who has been sentenced in a federal case may not utilize 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to collaterally attack the state convictions used to enhance the federal sentence where he failed to pursue, or unsuccessfully pursued, the state remedies that were available to him. In Daniels the Supreme Court was addressing the proper application of a federal statute, and Daniels has no bearing in the present case. However, we affirm the order of the trial court because the claims raised in Askew’s motion were either con-clusory and facially insufficient or, on their face, demonstrated a lack of due diligence in the raising of the claim. See Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42, 45 (Fla.2000) (holding [665]*665that the facts upon which a petition for coram nobis/Wood 3.850 are based “must have been unknown at trial, and it must appear that the defendant and counsel could not have known of them by the use of due diligence”).

Affirmed.

PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.

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

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Charles Askew challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

Askew filed his motion pursuant to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999). In the motion, Askew sought to withdraw his plea on the basis that it was involuntarily entered. In denying the motion, the trial court relied on Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 121 S.Ct. 1578, 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001). However, in Daniels the Supreme Court held that a defendant who has been sentenced in a federal case may not utilize 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to collaterally attack the state convictions used to enhance the federal sentence where he failed to pursue, or unsuccessfully pursued, the state remedies that were available to him. In Daniels the Supreme Court was addressing the proper application of a federal statute, and Daniels has no bearing in the present case. However, we affirm the order of the trial court because the claims raised in Askew’s motion were either con-clusory and facially insufficient or, on their face, demonstrated a lack of due diligence in the raising of the claim. See Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42, 45 (Fla.2000) (holding [665]*665that the facts upon which a petition for coram nobis/Wood 3.850 are based “must have been unknown at trial, and it must appear that the defendant and counsel could not have known of them by the use of due diligence”).

Affirmed.

PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

800 So. 2d 664, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15678, 2001 WL 1359103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/askew-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack