Espinoza v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Espinoza v. State

1 So. 3d 1257, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1051, 2009 WL 323333

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 2009

Docket2D08-690

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 So. 3d 1257 (Espinoza 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

Espinoza v. State, 1 So. 3d 1257, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1051, 2009 WL 323333 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Federico Espinoza challenges his convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine, 200 grams, and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, 200 grams. We affirm but write to note that because Espinoza entered negotiated guilty pleas to the charges without reserving his right to appeal any dispositive issues, he is limited to raising the following issues on appeal: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) violation of plea agreement, if preserved by a motion to withdraw plea; (3) voluntariness of plea, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; or (4) a sentencing error, if preserved. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii).

As such, Espinoza cannot now challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. Additionally, his attempts to attack the volun-tariness of his plea are not preserved for appeal because he has not filed a motion to withdraw plea with the trial court. Finally, Espinoza argues that it was fundamental error and a double jeopardy violation to sentence him for both conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine. We disagree. See Ramos v. State, 529 So.2d 807, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“[T]he legislature plainly stated its intent to punish conspiracy to traffic in cocaine separately] from the act of trafficking in that substance.”).

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Federico Espinoza challenges his convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine, 200 grams, and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, 200 grams. We affirm but write to note that because Espinoza entered negotiated guilty pleas to the charges without reserving his right to appeal any dispositive issues, he is limited to raising the following issues on appeal: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) violation of plea agreement, if preserved by a motion to withdraw plea; (3) voluntariness of plea, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; or (4) a sentencing error, if preserved. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii).

As such, Espinoza cannot now challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. Additionally, his attempts to attack the volun-tariness of his plea are not preserved for appeal because he has not filed a motion to withdraw plea with the trial court. Finally, Espinoza argues that it was fundamental error and a double jeopardy violation to sentence him for both conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine. We disagree. See Ramos v. State, 529 So.2d 807, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“[T]he legislature plainly stated its intent to punish conspiracy to traffic in cocaine separately] from the act of trafficking in that substance.”).

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 1257, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1051, 2009 WL 323333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/espinoza-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack