Keifner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Keifner v. State

896 So. 2d 955, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3542, 2005 WL 602638

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 16, 2005·No. No. 4D04-4798·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that he was improperly sentenced in absentia while incarcerated on unrelated charges, without prejudice to his filing a timely rule 8.850 motion in proper form, in light of Zuluaga v. State, 793 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (claims of improper sentencing in absentia are properly raised in a rule 3.850 motion). We do not have a sufficient record to determine whether, if appellant does file a rule 3.850 motion, it would be successive under rule 3.850(f), and this opinion should not be construed as deciding that issue.

POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that he was improperly sentenced in absentia while incarcerated on unrelated charges, without prejudice to his filing a timely rule 8.850 motion in proper form, in light of Zuluaga v. State, 793 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (claims of improper sentencing in absentia are properly raised in a rule 3.850 motion). We do not have a sufficient record to determine whether, if appellant does file a rule 3.850 motion, it would be successive under rule 3.850(f), and this opinion should not be construed as deciding that issue.

POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Keifner v. State, 896 So. 2d 955, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3542, 2005 WL 602638 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

896 So. 2d 955 (Keifner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related