Hunt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hunt v. State

728 So. 2d 338, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2518, 1999 WL 123647

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0306

StatusPublished

This text of 728 So. 2d 338 (Hunt 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

Hunt v. State, 728 So. 2d 338, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2518, 1999 WL 123647 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We redesignate the instant case as the appeal of an order denying a motion to withdraw plea pursuant to rule 3.170(i), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court erred in treating it as a rule 3.850 motion because it was not filed within thirty days after sentencing, where sentencing occurred on February 5, 1998, and the motion was notarized by Department of Corrections personnel twenty-eight days later, on March 5, 1998. See Rector v. State, 668 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Olkewicz v. State, 633 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Moreover, the motion was date-stamped by the circuit court on Monday, March 9, 1998, which was within the thirty-day period ending on Saturday, March 7, as extended by rule 3.040 to the next regular weekday.

We summarily affirm the denial pursuant to Florida Rule- of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), because Appellant’s claims of involuntary plea are refuted by the record. This denial is without prejudice to Appellant’s filing a timely sworn rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief raising such issues as the ineffective assistance and newly discovered evidence claims, not cognizable in a motion to withdraw under rule 3.170(Z), which Appellant hinted at in his unsworn amended motion to withdraw plea and which he argues in his initial brief..

POLEN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We redesignate the instant case as the appeal of an order denying a motion to withdraw plea pursuant to rule 3.170(i), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court erred in treating it as a rule 3.850 motion because it was not filed within thirty days after sentencing, where sentencing occurred on February 5, 1998, and the motion was notarized by Department of Corrections personnel twenty-eight days later, on March 5, 1998. See Rector v. State, 668 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Olkewicz v. State, 633 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Moreover, the motion was date-stamped by the circuit court on Monday, March 9, 1998, which was within the thirty-day period ending on Saturday, March 7, as extended by rule 3.040 to the next regular weekday.

We summarily affirm the denial pursuant to Florida Rule- of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), because Appellant’s claims of involuntary plea are refuted by the record. This denial is without prejudice to Appellant’s filing a timely sworn rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief raising such issues as the ineffective assistance and newly discovered evidence claims, not cognizable in a motion to withdraw under rule 3.170(Z), which Appellant hinted at in his unsworn amended motion to withdraw plea and which he argues in his initial brief..

POLEN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 338, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2518, 1999 WL 123647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack