Neloms v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neloms v. State

814 So. 2d 1165, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4963, 2002 WL 561686

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 2002

DocketNo. 4D00-4526

StatusPublished

This text of 814 So. 2d 1165 (Neloms 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

Neloms v. State, 814 So. 2d 1165, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4963, 2002 WL 561686 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct his sentence. He alleges that because the court never accepted his plea in open court, the court erred in imposing sentence. However, appellant never moved to withdraw his plea. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(f) (stating a court may permit withdrawal of a plea at any time before sentencing). The court adjudicated him guilty in a written adjudication of guilt. In fact, appellant is not challenging his sentence, but rather, the validity of his conviction. That he has shown no prejudice in what appears to be an inadvertent failure to accept the plea in open court is fatal to his challenge. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(i).

Affirmed.

WARNER, KLEIN and MAY, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct his sentence. He alleges that because the court never accepted his plea in open court, the court erred in imposing sentence. However, appellant never moved to withdraw his plea. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(f) (stating a court may permit withdrawal of a plea at any time before sentencing). The court adjudicated him guilty in a written adjudication of guilt. In fact, appellant is not challenging his sentence, but rather, the validity of his conviction. That he has shown no prejudice in what appears to be an inadvertent failure to accept the plea in open court is fatal to his challenge. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(i).

Affirmed.

WARNER, KLEIN and MAY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 So. 2d 1165, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4963, 2002 WL 561686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neloms-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.