Daily v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daily v. State

905 So. 2d 985, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10093, 2005 WL 1523418

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-273

StatusPublished

This text of 905 So. 2d 985 (Daily 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

Daily v. State, 905 So. 2d 985, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10093, 2005 WL 1523418 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Upon consideration of the defendant’s motion for rehearing and clarification, we deny the motion for rehearing, but grant the motion for clarification, and withdraw our opinion dated May 4, 2005, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

The defendant, Nathaniel Daily, appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant argues that the Notice of Intent to Seek an Enhanced Penalty was a “shotgun” notice, and therefore, insufficient. The claimed notice deficiency, however, does not render the sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a), and may only be raised in a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Zafora v. State, 900 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Reese v. State, 899 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). As the defendant’s conviction became final more than two years ago, he would, however, be procedurally barred from raising this claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Upon consideration of the defendant’s motion for rehearing and clarification, we deny the motion for rehearing, but grant the motion for clarification, and withdraw our opinion dated May 4, 2005, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

The defendant, Nathaniel Daily, appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant argues that the Notice of Intent to Seek an Enhanced Penalty was a “shotgun” notice, and therefore, insufficient. The claimed notice deficiency, however, does not render the sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a), and may only be raised in a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Zafora v. State, 900 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Reese v. State, 899 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). As the defendant’s conviction became final more than two years ago, he would, however, be procedurally barred from raising this claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

905 So. 2d 985, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10093, 2005 WL 1523418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daily-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack