Derrico v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Derrico v. State

924 So. 2d 970, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5065, 2006 WL 932527

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 2006

DocketNo. 2D05-3761

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 924 So. 2d 970 (Derrico 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

Derrico v. State, 924 So. 2d 970, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5065, 2006 WL 932527 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Demetrius Derrico appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the denial of claims one through four without further discussion. In claim five, Der-rico contended that his sentencing score-sheet was incorrectly calculated, but he did not specifically allege the error was apparent on the face of the record. The postcon-viction court denied the claim as facially insufficient. See Reaves v. State, 593 So.2d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

On appeal, Derrico has advanced additional arguments regarding claim five that were not raised before the postconviction court in his rule 3.800(a) motion. However, this court cannot address claims asserted for the first time on appeal. See Adams v. State, 774 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of claim five without prejudice to Derrico’s ability, if any, to make these additional arguments by way of motion in the circuit court.

Affirmed.

SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Demetrius Derrico appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the denial of claims one through four without further discussion. In claim five, Der-rico contended that his sentencing score-sheet was incorrectly calculated, but he did not specifically allege the error was apparent on the face of the record. The postcon-viction court denied the claim as facially insufficient. See Reaves v. State, 593 So.2d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

On appeal, Derrico has advanced additional arguments regarding claim five that were not raised before the postconviction court in his rule 3.800(a) motion. However, this court cannot address claims asserted for the first time on appeal. See Adams v. State, 774 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of claim five without prejudice to Derrico’s ability, if any, to make these additional arguments by way of motion in the circuit court.

Affirmed.

SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

924 So. 2d 970, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5065, 2006 WL 932527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derrico-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack