McNeil v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McNeil v. State

993 So. 2d 1030, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 774, 2008 WL 200321

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 2008

DocketNo. 2D07-4732

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 993 So. 2d 1030 (McNeil 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

McNeil v. State, 993 So. 2d 1030, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 774, 2008 WL 200321 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Elliot Antonio McNeil appeals the post-conviction court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). To resolve Mr. McNeil’s claim requires factual determinations that are not apparent from the face of the record. Therefore, this claim may not be raised by a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Blocker v. State, 968 So.2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 973 So.2d 1119, No. SC07-2292, 2007 WL 4864232 (Fla. Dec. 21, 2007).

Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial order without prejudice to any right Mr. McNeil might have to file a timely and facially sufficient sworn motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Any such motion will not be deemed successive.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, WHATLEY, and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

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