Michael G. Kendrick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael G. Kendrick v. State

204 So. 3d 486, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10921

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 2016

Docket5D15-3730

StatusPublished

This text of 204 So. 3d 486 (Michael G. Kendrick 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

Michael G. Kendrick v. State, 204 So. 3d 486, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10921 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders 1 appeal, a review of the record shows no apparent reversible error. See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1987). Following a proper plea colloquy, Michael Gerard Kendrick (“Appellant”) entered a guilty plea, accepting the trial court’s offer of a two-year prison sentence. Appellant never moved to withdraw his plea in the trial court but now seeks a direct appeal challenging the voluntariness of his plea based on the advice of his trial counsel. Because Appellant did not properly preserve this issue for purposes of a direct appeal with the trial court, he must raise the issue through a timely motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Accordingly, we affirm Kendrick’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to his ability to file a timely Rule 3.850 motion.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders 1 appeal, a review of the record shows no apparent reversible error. See State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1987). Following a proper plea colloquy, Michael Gerard Kendrick (“Appellant”) entered a guilty plea, accepting the trial court’s offer of a two-year prison sentence. Appellant never moved to withdraw his plea in the trial court but now seeks a direct appeal challenging the voluntariness of his plea based on the advice of his trial counsel. Because Appellant did not properly preserve this issue for purposes of a direct appeal with the trial court, he must raise the issue through a timely motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Accordingly, we affirm Kendrick’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to his ability to file a timely Rule 3.850 motion.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 3d 486, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-g-kendrick-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack