Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Dukes v. State

Dukes v. State

647 So. 2d 181, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6490, 1994 WL 284257
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dukes v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9200 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 29, 1994·No. No. 93-16·Published

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

The trial court improperly characterized the appellant’s motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) as a motion for reduction of a legal sentence, required by rule 3.800(b) to be filed within sixty days after imposition of sentence. The denial of the [182]*182motion as untimely was therefore error. However, because the record conclusively shows that appellant’s sentence was not illegal, the denial of the motion is AFFIRMED.

MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

Dukes v. State, 647 So. 2d 181, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6490, 1994 WL 284257 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

647 So. 2d 181 (Dukes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.