Guinade v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guinade v. State

940 So. 2d 1241, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18419, 2006 WL 3102297

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 3, 2006

DocketNo. 5D06-2190

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 940 So. 2d 1241 (Guinade 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

Guinade v. State, 940 So. 2d 1241, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18419, 2006 WL 3102297 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jerry L. Guinade appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Mr. Guinade alleges that he is entitled to postconviction relief. Specifically, he contends that the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720 by not asking him if there was any legal cause why he should not be sentenced following his conviction, and by not giving him an opportunity to present evidence and argument before pronouncing sentence. We affirm. Rule 3.850 does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have been or should have been raised at trial, and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence. This claim could or should have been raised on direct appeal, and, therefore, is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jerry L. Guinade appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Mr. Guinade alleges that he is entitled to postconviction relief. Specifically, he contends that the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720 by not asking him if there was any legal cause why he should not be sentenced following his conviction, and by not giving him an opportunity to present evidence and argument before pronouncing sentence. We affirm. Rule 3.850 does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have been or should have been raised at trial, and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence. This claim could or should have been raised on direct appeal, and, therefore, is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 So. 2d 1241, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18419, 2006 WL 3102297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guinade-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack