Hurst v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hurst v. State

876 So. 2d 1284, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10840, 2004 WL 1621644

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-2104

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 876 So. 2d 1284 (Hurst 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

Hurst v. State, 876 So. 2d 1284, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10840, 2004 WL 1621644 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenny Hurst appeals the denial of his 3.170(7) motion to withdraw his nolo con-tendere pleas and the partial denial of a motion styled as a 3.800(c) “Motion to Reduce or Modify Sentence.” To the extent that Hurst seeks review of the denial of his motion to withdraw pleas, the appeal is dismissed as no written order was ever entered. See Pannier v. State, 849 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Marinelli v. State, 706 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). As for the partial denial of the “Motion to Reduce or Modify Sentence,” we affirm. The denial of a rule 3.800(c) motion is not appealable, see Bateman v. State, 866 So.2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and, even if the motion is viewed as filed pursuant to 3.800(a), as argued by Hurst, it was properly denied as the alleged errors are not apparent from the face of the record, see Jackson v. State, 803 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Hurst’s right to seek any available postconviction relief.

GUNTHER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kenny Hurst appeals the denial of his 3.170(7) motion to withdraw his nolo con-tendere pleas and the partial denial of a motion styled as a 3.800(c) “Motion to Reduce or Modify Sentence.” To the extent that Hurst seeks review of the denial of his motion to withdraw pleas, the appeal is dismissed as no written order was ever entered. See Pannier v. State, 849 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Marinelli v. State, 706 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). As for the partial denial of the “Motion to Reduce or Modify Sentence,” we affirm. The denial of a rule 3.800(c) motion is not appealable, see Bateman v. State, 866 So.2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and, even if the motion is viewed as filed pursuant to 3.800(a), as argued by Hurst, it was properly denied as the alleged errors are not apparent from the face of the record, see Jackson v. State, 803 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Hurst’s right to seek any available postconviction relief.

GUNTHER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

876 So. 2d 1284, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10840, 2004 WL 1621644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurst-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack