Calixte v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calixte v. State

53 So. 3d 385, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1049, 2011 WL 309575

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-1035

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 So. 3d 385 (Calixte 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

Calixte v. State, 53 So. 3d 385, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1049, 2011 WL 309575 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). It raises an issue not cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence, because he is attacking the judgment, not the sentence. See Anderson v. State, 758 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Treated as a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the motion is untimely, and even considering the substance, his claim is meritless. He contends that the judge, state attorney, and sheriff acted without jurisdiction because they did not have on file a required oath of office. Such a challenge must be timely, and must be brought by a direct quo warranto proceeding. See Johnson v. Office of State Attorney, 987 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). To the extent that he claims that the information was not properly signed or verified, his claims do not raise a ground for postcon-viction relief. See Logan v. State, 1 So.3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Affirmed.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). It raises an issue not cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence, because he is attacking the judgment, not the sentence. See Anderson v. State, 758 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Treated as a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the motion is untimely, and even considering the substance, his claim is meritless. He contends that the judge, state attorney, and sheriff acted without jurisdiction because they did not have on file a required oath of office. Such a challenge must be timely, and must be brought by a direct quo warranto proceeding. See Johnson v. Office of State Attorney, 987 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). To the extent that he claims that the information was not properly signed or verified, his claims do not raise a ground for postcon-viction relief. See Logan v. State, 1 So.3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Affirmed.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 So. 3d 385, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1049, 2011 WL 309575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calixte-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack