Balkcom v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Balkcom v. State

900 So. 2d 706, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5948, 2005 WL 954966

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-4558

StatusPublished

This text of 900 So. 2d 706 (Balkcom 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

Balkcom v. State, 900 So. 2d 706, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5948, 2005 WL 954966 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Carlton Balkcom appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to any right Balkcom may have to raise his claims or to seek to withdraw his plea in a timely, facially sufficient motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Romero v. State, 805 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because the time for Balk-com to seek such relief expired during the pendency of this appeal, any motion filed within sixty days of the issuance of the mandate in this case shall be considered [707]*707timely. See Sanders v. State, 823 So.2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed.

STRINGER and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Carlton Balkcom appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to any right Balkcom may have to raise his claims or to seek to withdraw his plea in a timely, facially sufficient motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Romero v. State, 805 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because the time for Balk-com to seek such relief expired during the pendency of this appeal, any motion filed within sixty days of the issuance of the mandate in this case shall be considered [707]*707timely. See Sanders v. State, 823 So.2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed.

STRINGER and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 So. 2d 706, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5948, 2005 WL 954966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balkcom-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack