Gilvin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gilvin v. State

429 So. 2d 1355, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20735

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1983

DocketNo. AI-259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 429 So. 2d 1355 (Gilvin 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

Gilvin v. State, 429 So. 2d 1355, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20735 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

In this appeal the public defender has filed an Anders1 brief as to appellant’s conviction, but asserts that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the first one third of appellant’s sentence without stating with particularity the reasons therefor.² Appellant has filed a pro se brief asserting several errors, including ineffective assistance of counsel. The alleged sentencing error and those alleged in the pro se brief have not been presented to the lower court, being raised for the first time by this appeal. We therefore decline to address those issues, and affirm the conviction and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. See Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Sawyer v. State, 401 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

In this appeal the public defender has filed an Anders1 brief as to appellant’s conviction, but asserts that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the first one third of appellant’s sentence without stating with particularity the reasons therefor.² Appellant has filed a pro se brief asserting several errors, including ineffective assistance of counsel. The alleged sentencing error and those alleged in the pro se brief have not been presented to the lower court, being raised for the first time by this appeal. We therefore decline to address those issues, and affirm the conviction and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. See Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Sawyer v. State, 401 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 So. 2d 1355, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilvin-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack