Milton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milton v. State

702 So. 2d 571, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12931, 1997 WL 716613

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

DocketNo. 96-02422

StatusPublished

This text of 702 So. 2d 571 (Milton 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

Milton v. State, 702 So. 2d 571, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12931, 1997 WL 716613 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991), our independent review of the record discloses one “relatively minor” issue. We strike the imposition of $255 for investigative costs from the judgment, without prejudice to the State, on remand, seeking reimposition after complying with the requirements of section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1995). See Mickler v. State, 682 So.2d 607, 609-610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We affirm the judgment and sentences in all other respects.

Appellate counsel also pointed out in the Anders brief that the trial court’s oral denial of Mr. Milton’s motion to withdraw his plea might have arguable merit. See In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d at 151. Our review of the record does not convince us that Mr. Milton intended his unsworn, informal, oral request to withdraw his plea to meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 or Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975). Further, a trial court’s oral ruling on such a postjudgment motion is not appealable. See Hunter v. State, 583 So.2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we agree with appellate counsel that, except for the imposition of costs, there are no arguable issues for direct appeal.

Affirmed as modified.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991), our independent review of the record discloses one “relatively minor” issue. We strike the imposition of $255 for investigative costs from the judgment, without prejudice to the State, on remand, seeking reimposition after complying with the requirements of section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1995). See Mickler v. State, 682 So.2d 607, 609-610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We affirm the judgment and sentences in all other respects.

Appellate counsel also pointed out in the Anders brief that the trial court’s oral denial of Mr. Milton’s motion to withdraw his plea might have arguable merit. See In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d at 151. Our review of the record does not convince us that Mr. Milton intended his unsworn, informal, oral request to withdraw his plea to meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 or Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975). Further, a trial court’s oral ruling on such a postjudgment motion is not appealable. See Hunter v. State, 583 So.2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we agree with appellate counsel that, except for the imposition of costs, there are no arguable issues for direct appeal.

Affirmed as modified.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 571, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12931, 1997 WL 716613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack