Jolly v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jolly v. State

106 So. 3d 508, 2013 WL 331599, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1640

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 2013

DocketNo. 4D11-1812

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 So. 3d 508 (Jolly 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

Jolly v. State, 106 So. 3d 508, 2013 WL 331599, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1640 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s untimely post-conviction motion. A petition for writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for a rule 3.850 motion. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1241 (Fla.2004); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(Z). As to appellant’s claim that the sentencing court believed that it was required to sentence appellant to the statutory maximum once it concluded that he was a habitual felony offender, see Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), appellant fails to show manifest injustice that merits relaxing the pro-eedural bars. Cf. Johnson v. State, 9 So.3d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Prince v. State, 98 So.3d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Affirmed.

POLEN, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s untimely post-conviction motion. A petition for writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for a rule 3.850 motion. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1241 (Fla.2004); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(Z). As to appellant’s claim that the sentencing court believed that it was required to sentence appellant to the statutory maximum once it concluded that he was a habitual felony offender, see Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992), appellant fails to show manifest injustice that merits relaxing the pro-eedural bars. Cf. Johnson v. State, 9 So.3d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Prince v. State, 98 So.3d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Affirmed.

POLEN, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 3d 508, 2013 WL 331599, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jolly-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack