Goodwin v. State

899 So. 2d 1282, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6052, 2005 WL 991692
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Goodwin v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10178
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 29, 2005·No. No. 5D04-1929·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders1 appeal, a review of the record shows no apparent reversible error. See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1987). Joseph W. Goodwin entered a no contest plea, and the sentence conforms to the plea bargain or is otherwise legal. Although Goodwin alleges in his pro se brief that he did not understand the sentence that would be imposed, he did not file a motion to withdraw his plea in the trial court. As a result, the issue is not preserved for appellate review and must be raised in a timely motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Accordingly, we affirm Goodwin’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to file a timely rule 3.850 motion.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

Goodwin v. State, 899 So. 2d 1282, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6052, 2005 WL 991692 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

899 So. 2d 1282 (Goodwin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
State v. Causey
503 So. 2d 321 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)