Douglas v. State

893 So. 2d 655, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1602, 2005 WL 357033
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Douglas v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 841 So. 2d 697
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 16, 2005·No. No. 4D04-698·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

More than two years after his plea agreement and sentencing, appellant challenged a provision of his sentence regarding electronic monitoring. If treated as a claim for post-conviction relief, the motion was untimely within the meaning of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Furthermore, the electronic monitoring provision is not an “illegal sentence” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). By entering his plea and accepting the sentence, which avoided a potential thirty-five year prison sentence, appellant waived his right to make various constitutional challenges to section 948.03(5)(b)5, Florida Statutes (2001).

Affirmed.

KLEIN, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

Douglas v. State, 893 So. 2d 655, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1602, 2005 WL 357033 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

893 So. 2d 655 (Douglas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.