McLeod v. State
890 So. 2d 553, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 182, 2005 WL 74111
Opinion
Wayne McLeod appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion, in which he contended that he should not have been convicted of failure to register as a sex offender. It appears that Mr. McLeod is not challenging his sentence. Instead, he is attempting to challenge his conviction. A challenge to a conviction is not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). See e.g., Cook v. State, 885 So.2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Oxendine v. State, 852 So.2d 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McLeod v. State, 890 So. 2d 553, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 182, 2005 WL 74111 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).
890 So. 2d 553 (McLeod v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cook v. State
885 So. 2d 911 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Oxendine v. State
852 So. 2d 286 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)