Feazell v. State

115 So. 3d 1045, 2013 WL 2420394, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 5, 2013·No. No. 4D12-2714·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s motion to withdraw plea post-sentencing in this case was untimely filed. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(l) (motion must be filed within thirty days of date sentence rendered). As a result, the trial eourt never had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion. Bermudez v. State, 901 So.2d 981, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Golden v. State, 84 So.3d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); James v. State, 12 So.3d 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); McKnight v. State, 964 So.2d 803, 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Dayton v. State, 867 So.2d 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). On remand, the order denying appellant’s motion shall be modified to reflect denial was due to lack of jurisdiction.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

WARNER, STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

Feazell v. State, 115 So. 3d 1045, 2013 WL 2420394, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

115 So. 3d 1045 (Feazell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

2D15-1642 / Sanders v. State
210 So. 3d 98 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)