HOUPT v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

HOUPT v. State

32 So. 3d 122, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16916, 2009 WL 3789415

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 2009

Docket2D09-1133

StatusPublished

This text of 32 So. 3d 122 (HOUPT 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

HOUPT v. State, 32 So. 3d 122, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16916, 2009 WL 3789415 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Robert Houpt challenges the Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Correct Sentence and Motion for Judicial Enforcement. We affirm the postconviction court’s order. However, we note that in his motion to correct sentence dated November 20, 2008, Houpt sought additional jail credit. It appears that Houpt withdrew this motion prior to the rendition of the order on appeal and that the postcon-viction court did not address the jail credit claim on the merits. Because the postcon-viction court did not rule on the merits of that claim, Houpt is not barred from reasserting it. Additionally, our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Houpt might have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 seeking to withdraw his admission to violating probation on the ground that his admission was involuntary because he was misadvised as to the amount of prison time he would have to serve.

Affirmed.

FULMER and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Robert Houpt challenges the Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Correct Sentence and Motion for Judicial Enforcement. We affirm the postconviction court’s order. However, we note that in his motion to correct sentence dated November 20, 2008, Houpt sought additional jail credit. It appears that Houpt withdrew this motion prior to the rendition of the order on appeal and that the postcon-viction court did not address the jail credit claim on the merits. Because the postcon-viction court did not rule on the merits of that claim, Houpt is not barred from reasserting it. Additionally, our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Houpt might have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 seeking to withdraw his admission to violating probation on the ground that his admission was involuntary because he was misadvised as to the amount of prison time he would have to serve.

Affirmed.

FULMER and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 So. 3d 122, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16916, 2009 WL 3789415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houpt-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack