Grandison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grandison v. State

654 So. 2d 635, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4855, 1995 WL 259149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1995

DocketNo. 94-1923

StatusPublished

This text of 654 So. 2d 635 (Grandison 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

Grandison v. State, 654 So. 2d 635, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4855, 1995 WL 259149 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s post-conviction motion challenging the voluntariness of his nolo conten-dere plea was not timely because it was not filed within two years after the judgment and sentence became final. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(b). In addition, the motion is facially insufficient because it fails to set forth all of the information required by rule 3.850(c). Therefore, we affirm the summary denial of appellant’s motion seeking to withdraw his plea.

In a Notice of Supplemental Authority, appellant cites Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla.1993); McCants v. State, 648 So.2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); and Clark v. State, 641 So.2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), cases which stand for the proposition that consecutive enhanced sentences are not permitted under section 775.084 for crimes growing out of a single criminal episode. We decline to address the issue implicitly raised for the first time by the filing of this notice, as it was not raised before the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s post-conviction motion challenging the voluntariness of his nolo conten-dere plea was not timely because it was not filed within two years after the judgment and sentence became final. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(b). In addition, the motion is facially insufficient because it fails to set forth all of the information required by rule 3.850(c). Therefore, we affirm the summary denial of appellant’s motion seeking to withdraw his plea.

In a Notice of Supplemental Authority, appellant cites Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla.1993); McCants v. State, 648 So.2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); and Clark v. State, 641 So.2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), cases which stand for the proposition that consecutive enhanced sentences are not permitted under section 775.084 for crimes growing out of a single criminal episode. We decline to address the issue implicitly raised for the first time by the filing of this notice, as it was not raised before the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 635, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4855, 1995 WL 259149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grandison-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack