Martinez v. State of Florida
This text of Martinez v. State of Florida (Martinez v. State of Florida) 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.
Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D2024-0451 _____________________________
ERIC C. MARTINEZ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gilchrist County. James M. Colaw, Judge.
September 11, 2024
PER CURIAM.
A claim alleging the trial court misunderstood its sentencing options is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Stephens v. State, 823 So. 2d 180, 181—82 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Because this claim could have been raised on direct appeal, and the error does not render the appellant’s sentence illegal, it is not cognizable in a postconviction motion under either rule 3.800, or rule 3.850.”). We affirm the order below.
ROBERTS, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Eric C. Martinez, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Martinez v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2024.