Herrera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Herrera v. State

25 So. 3d 646, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 22, 2010 WL 22691

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 2010

Docket4D08-2499

StatusPublished

This text of 25 So. 3d 646 (Herrera 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

Herrera v. State, 25 So. 3d 646, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 22, 2010 WL 22691 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence, concluding that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Appellant also argues that the court erred in denying his motion to mitigate sentence as untimely. While we affirm, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant moving to mitigate within sixty days of the mandate, as provided in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c).

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence, concluding that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Appellant also argues that the court erred in denying his motion to mitigate sentence as untimely. While we affirm, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant moving to mitigate within sixty days of the mandate, as provided in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c).

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 So. 3d 646, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 22, 2010 WL 22691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.