Imbrunone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Imbrunone v. State

793 So. 2d 96, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11426, 2001 WL 912821

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-1464

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 793 So. 2d 96 (Imbrunone 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

Imbrunone v. State, 793 So. 2d 96, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11426, 2001 WL 912821 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Aaron Imbrunone appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Imbrunone styled his submission as a motion to correct illegal sentence, but he filed it pursuant to rule 3.850, met the pleading requirements of rule 3.850, and sought relief only available pursuant to rule 3.850. The circuit court, noting that the motion sought relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000), treated the motion as one filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) and denied it. We affirm without comment the denial of Im-brunone’s claim that he is entitled to Heggs resentencing. However, the circuit court failed to address the portion of the motion in which Imbrunone sought to withdraw his original plea. That aspect of the motion was facially sufficient. We reverse and remand for the circuit court to consider it.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Aaron Imbrunone appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Imbrunone styled his submission as a motion to correct illegal sentence, but he filed it pursuant to rule 3.850, met the pleading requirements of rule 3.850, and sought relief only available pursuant to rule 3.850. The circuit court, noting that the motion sought relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000), treated the motion as one filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) and denied it. We affirm without comment the denial of Im-brunone’s claim that he is entitled to Heggs resentencing. However, the circuit court failed to address the portion of the motion in which Imbrunone sought to withdraw his original plea. That aspect of the motion was facially sufficient. We reverse and remand for the circuit court to consider it.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

793 So. 2d 96, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11426, 2001 WL 912821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imbrunone-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack