Clark v. State

969 So. 2d 1146, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18172, 2007 WL 3390940
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Clark v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 903 So. 2d 292
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 16, 2007·No. No. 5D07-2557·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clark filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in sixteen different cases. He alleged that his sentencing hearing was procedurally defective and that his plea was involuntary. Neither of these claims is cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion. See Hope v. State, 766 So.2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Abdullah v. State, 679 So.2d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Furthermore, as the trial court observed, the claims would be untimely if raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, MONACO and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

Clark v. State, 969 So. 2d 1146, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18172, 2007 WL 3390940 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

969 So. 2d 1146 (Clark v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abdullah v. State
679 So. 2d 846 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Hope v. State
766 So. 2d 343 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)