Massey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Massey v. State

186 So. 3d 623, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3405, 2016 WL 852610

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 2016

DocketNo. 1D15-2588

StatusPublished

This text of 186 So. 3d 623 (Massey 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

Massey v. State, 186 So. 3d 623, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3405, 2016 WL 852610 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is brought under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having, reviewed the record on appeal, we find no preserved error in either Appellant’s judgment or sentence warranting reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. However, we note that An-ders counsel pointed out a potentially meritorious but unpreserved cost sentencing error in the initial Anders brief, but failed to take steps to either correct or preserve the error by filing a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) before this case was perfected and sent to the panel for review. - Accordingly, while we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, we do so without prejudice to Appellant’s right to seek timely collateral relief. See Ramos v. State, 156 So.3d 591, 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (affirming unpre-served sentencing error without prejudice to defendant’s right to file appropriate post-conviction motion). See also Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So.3d 229, 230-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is brought under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having, reviewed the record on appeal, we find no preserved error in either Appellant’s judgment or sentence warranting reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. However, we note that An-ders counsel pointed out a potentially meritorious but unpreserved cost sentencing error in the initial Anders brief, but failed to take steps to either correct or preserve the error by filing a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) before this case was perfected and sent to the panel for review. - Accordingly, while we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, we do so without prejudice to Appellant’s right to seek timely collateral relief. See Ramos v. State, 156 So.3d 591, 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (affirming unpre-served sentencing error without prejudice to defendant’s right to file appropriate post-conviction motion). See also Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So.3d 229, 230-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 3d 623, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3405, 2016 WL 852610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massey-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack