Eady v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eady v. State

273 So. 3d 97

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2019

DocketNo. 3D18-2013

StatusPublished

This text of 273 So. 3d 97 (Eady 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

Eady v. State, 273 So. 3d 97 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Cox v. State, 221 So.3d 723, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding: "Unlike a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850, a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a) places the burden upon the defendant ... to affirmatively identify court records which, on their face, demonstrate the existence of an illegal sentence or an entitlement to relief under rule 3.800(a)"); Llerena v. State, 953 So.2d 31, 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (noting: "Concurrent sentences do not necessarily begin at the same time, and unless they are ordered to be coterminous, they will expire on different dates"); Knight v. State, 832 So.2d 172, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (affirming order denying motion for postconviction relief where the "plea colloquy contain[ed] no indication that the sentence was to be coterminous with any other sentence").

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Cox v. State, 221 So.3d 723, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding: "Unlike a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850, a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a) places the burden upon the defendant ... to affirmatively identify court records which, on their face, demonstrate the existence of an illegal sentence or an entitlement to relief under rule 3.800(a)"); Llerena v. State, 953 So.2d 31, 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (noting: "Concurrent sentences do not necessarily begin at the same time, and unless they are ordered to be coterminous, they will expire on different dates"); Knight v. State, 832 So.2d 172, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (affirming order denying motion for postconviction relief where the "plea colloquy contain[ed] no indication that the sentence was to be coterminous with any other sentence").

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 So. 3d 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eady-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack