Mingo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mingo v. State

907 So. 2d 1265, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12027, 2005 WL 1817955

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-1180

StatusPublished

This text of 907 So. 2d 1265 (Mingo 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

Mingo v. State, 907 So. 2d 1265, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12027, 2005 WL 1817955 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

The defendant, Corey Mingo, appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant argues that the Notice of Intent to Seek an Enhanced Penalty was a “shotgun” notice, and therefore, insufficient. The claimed notice deficiency, however, does not render the sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a), and may only be raised in a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Zafora v. State, 900 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Reese v. State, 899 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). As the defendant’s conviction became final more than two years ago, he would, however, be proeedurally barred from raising this claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

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

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

The defendant, Corey Mingo, appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant argues that the Notice of Intent to Seek an Enhanced Penalty was a “shotgun” notice, and therefore, insufficient. The claimed notice deficiency, however, does not render the sentence “illegal” under Rule 3.800(a), and may only be raised in a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Zafora v. State, 900 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Reese v. State, 899 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Cooper v. State, 817 So.2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). As the defendant’s conviction became final more than two years ago, he would, however, be proeedurally barred from raising this claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

907 So. 2d 1265, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12027, 2005 WL 1817955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mingo-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack