Harvin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harvin v. State

385 So. 2d 119

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 26, 1980

DocketNo. 80-1606

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 385 So. 2d 119 (Harvin 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

Harvin v. State, 385 So. 2d 119 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his motion under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850 to vacate the judgment and sentence entered against him after a guilty plea. The entry of the plea effectively waived his presently asserted claims that his confession to the crime was involuntary and that evidence against him was the product of an unlawful search and seizure; hence, these matters cannot be considered in a Rule 3.850 proceeding. E. g., Whitlow v. State, 256 So.2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Hand v. State, 208 So.2d 307 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Since there was no allegation that the plea itself was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, or was otherwise subject to legal challenge, the motion was properly denied without evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his motion under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850 to vacate the judgment and sentence entered against him after a guilty plea. The entry of the plea effectively waived his presently asserted claims that his confession to the crime was involuntary and that evidence against him was the product of an unlawful search and seizure; hence, these matters cannot be considered in a Rule 3.850 proceeding. E. g., Whitlow v. State, 256 So.2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Hand v. State, 208 So.2d 307 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Since there was no allegation that the plea itself was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, or was otherwise subject to legal challenge, the motion was properly denied without evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 So. 2d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvin-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack