Nivose v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nivose v. State

835 So. 2d 1248, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 749, 2003 WL 187238

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-5017

StatusPublished

This text of 835 So. 2d 1248 (Nivose 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

Nivose v. State, 835 So. 2d 1248, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 749, 2003 WL 187238 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jonas Nivose, appeals from a circuit court order denying the assistance he requested in a letter to the judge, arguably seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. It appears that appellant may have a valid basis to withdraw his plea as involuntary because he did not understand the deportation consequences of the plea. However, the letter was not sworn and did not include the contents required by rule 3.850(c) so that it could properly be considered a rule 3.850 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief, without prejudice to appellant’s filing a timely, sworn, and facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion containing the contents required by rule 3.850(c). See, e.g., Brawn v. State, 661 So.2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

FARMER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jonas Nivose, appeals from a circuit court order denying the assistance he requested in a letter to the judge, arguably seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. It appears that appellant may have a valid basis to withdraw his plea as involuntary because he did not understand the deportation consequences of the plea. However, the letter was not sworn and did not include the contents required by rule 3.850(c) so that it could properly be considered a rule 3.850 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief, without prejudice to appellant’s filing a timely, sworn, and facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion containing the contents required by rule 3.850(c). See, e.g., Brawn v. State, 661 So.2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

FARMER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 1248, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 749, 2003 WL 187238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nivose-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.