Peacock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peacock v. State

784 So. 2d 1267, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7442, 2001 WL 567629

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-1487

StatusPublished

This text of 784 So. 2d 1267 (Peacock 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

Peacock v. State, 784 So. 2d 1267, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7442, 2001 WL 567629 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Delfonta Peacock (Appellant) appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw a plea, which was found by the trial court to be procedurally barred. On appeal, he alleges he received an “illegal sentence.” See § 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1995) (amendment making a “person who has been convicted of a capital felony ... ineligible for parole”); State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); Kelly v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 728 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). He seeks to have his primary plea and sentence vacated, and his alternate default plea and sentence substituted. Concluding that the motion to withdraw plea was properly denied, we affirm.

Appellant entered a guilty plea and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement in June 1997. No direct appeal was taken. He filed a 1998 motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which was addressed on the merits and was denied by the trial court. That ruling was not [1268]*1268appealed. Appellant filed a September 1999 motion to withdraw plea alleging various claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel and/or the lack of a voluntary, knowing plea. On appeal, Appellant raises “illegal sentence” claims that are not alleged in the motion to withdraw plea. The motion to withdraw plea was untimely filed and is procedurally deficient. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(1) & 3.850(b).

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, PADOVANO, and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Delfonta Peacock (Appellant) appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw a plea, which was found by the trial court to be procedurally barred. On appeal, he alleges he received an “illegal sentence.” See § 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1995) (amendment making a “person who has been convicted of a capital felony ... ineligible for parole”); State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); Kelly v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 728 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). He seeks to have his primary plea and sentence vacated, and his alternate default plea and sentence substituted. Concluding that the motion to withdraw plea was properly denied, we affirm.

Appellant entered a guilty plea and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement in June 1997. No direct appeal was taken. He filed a 1998 motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which was addressed on the merits and was denied by the trial court. That ruling was not [1268]*1268appealed. Appellant filed a September 1999 motion to withdraw plea alleging various claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel and/or the lack of a voluntary, knowing plea. On appeal, Appellant raises “illegal sentence” claims that are not alleged in the motion to withdraw plea. The motion to withdraw plea was untimely filed and is procedurally deficient. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(1) & 3.850(b).

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, PADOVANO, and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

784 So. 2d 1267, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7442, 2001 WL 567629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peacock-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack