Mingo v. State

907 So. 2d 1265, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12027, 2005 WL 1817955
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mingo v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 914 So. 2d 1070
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 3, 2005·No. No. 3D05-1180·Published

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

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

907 So. 2d 1265 (Mingo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zafora v. State
900 So. 2d 675 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Reese v. State
899 So. 2d 428 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Cooper v. State
817 So. 2d 934 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)