Oliva v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oliva v. State

815 So. 2d 714, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5205, 2002 WL 662911

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-4542

StatusPublished

This text of 815 So. 2d 714 (Oliva 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

Oliva v. State, 815 So. 2d 714, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5205, 2002 WL 662911 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, notwithstanding the motion was unsworn. Had the trial court denied the motion solely on that ground, the denial would have been without prejudice to file a properly sworn motion. However, the trial court addressed each of the nine claims for relief, finding some were raised and rejected on appeal, and others were deficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We agree.

Appellant has argued for the first time in his brief on appeal that his sentence for trafficking in cocaine between 28 grams and 200 grams, in violation of section 893.135(l)(b)la, Florida Statutes (1995), was not subject to habitual offender sentencing. Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s fifing a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence on that ground, if appropriate.

POLEN, C.J., STONE and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, notwithstanding the motion was unsworn. Had the trial court denied the motion solely on that ground, the denial would have been without prejudice to file a properly sworn motion. However, the trial court addressed each of the nine claims for relief, finding some were raised and rejected on appeal, and others were deficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We agree.

Appellant has argued for the first time in his brief on appeal that his sentence for trafficking in cocaine between 28 grams and 200 grams, in violation of section 893.135(l)(b)la, Florida Statutes (1995), was not subject to habitual offender sentencing. Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s fifing a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence on that ground, if appropriate.

POLEN, C.J., STONE and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 So. 2d 714, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5205, 2002 WL 662911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliva-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack