Lyell v. State

872 So. 2d 447, 2004 WL 1071798
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 14, 2004
Docket2D01-2747
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 872 So. 2d 447 (Lyell 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
Lyell v. State, 872 So. 2d 447, 2004 WL 1071798 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

872 So.2d 447 (2004)

Claude Lee LYELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D01-2747.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 14, 2004.

Claude Lee Lyell, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Danilo Cruz-Carino, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

On September 16, 1998, the circuit court placed Claude Lyell on thirty-six months' probation based on his guilty plea to two charges of aggravated battery. In April 2001, Lyell admitted violating his probation. The court revoked his probation and sentenced him to sixty months' imprisonment on April 23, 2001. On May 13, 2001, he filed an unsworn motion to withdraw his plea, in which he attacked the voluntariness of his September 1998 plea, not the voluntariness of his admission that he violated probation. The circuit court correctly found that the unsworn motion was insufficient under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. It treated the motion as one pursuant to rule 3.170(l) and denied it as untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after sentence was imposed on the contested plea.

We affirm the order denying Lyell's motion to withdraw his plea. Our affirmance is without prejudice to his rights, if any, to file a sufficient rule 3.850 motion concerning his probation violation. We note, however, that the time has run to file a rule 3.850 motion attacking the voluntariness of his September 1998 plea. Lyell did not appeal his judgment and sentence based on that plea, so it became final on October 16, 1998. His two-year window to challenge that plea under rule 3.850 expired in October 2000. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.

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

Related

Bray v. State
197 So. 3d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Knight v. State
965 So. 2d 323 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Underwood v. State
947 So. 2d 1273 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Cowan v. State
940 So. 2d 1173 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Langlois v. State
933 So. 2d 1281 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Hameen v. Rutherford
909 So. 2d 407 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
McFadden v. State
904 So. 2d 570 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
872 So. 2d 447, 2004 WL 1071798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyell-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.