Holmes v. State
869 So. 2d 622, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3322, 2004 WL 515507
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Holmes v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 842 So. 2d 187 →
Opinion
The order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed. The initial brief filed in this appeal raises claims that were not presented in the motion below. Affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to raise these claims by proper motion in the trial court. See Penrod v. State, 621 So.2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). See generally Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 683 (Fla.1995) (stating that in order to be cognizable on appeal, claims must first be raised in the trial court).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Holmes v. State, 869 So. 2d 622, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3322, 2004 WL 515507 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).
869 So. 2d 622 (Holmes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Finney v. State
660 So. 2d 674 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Penrod v. State
621 So. 2d 473 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)