Madera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Madera v. State

226 So. 3d 385, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13393, 2017 WL 4182947

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 22, 2017·No. Case No. 5D16-4352·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences but do so without prejudice to Appellant filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or 3.850 on his claim that the imposition of drug offender probation in this case is illegal. Appellant failed to preserve this claim for review on direct appeal by either contemporaneously objecting to the alleged sentencing error or by filing a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2). See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 569 (Fla. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences but do so without prejudice to Appellant filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or 3.850 on his claim that the imposition of drug offender probation in this case is illegal. Appellant failed to preserve this claim for review on direct appeal by either contemporaneously objecting to the alleged sentencing error or by filing a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2). See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 569 (Fla. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Madera v. State, 226 So. 3d 385, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13393, 2017 WL 4182947 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

226 So. 3d 385 (Madera v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related