Potter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Potter v. State

769 So. 2d 519, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13774, 2000 WL 1580572

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 25, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-2209

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 769 So. 2d 519 (Potter 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

Potter v. State, 769 So. 2d 519, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13774, 2000 WL 1580572 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The opinion filed in this case on August 30, 2000 is vacated and withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place. The appellant, Gary P. Potter, appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate an illegal sentence entered after a bench trial conducted approximately seventeen years ago. In the motion filed below, for the first time, Potter alleged that he was incompetent to stand trial when his trial was held, citing both rule 3.800(b) and rule 3.850(b)(1) and (2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He relies on Jones v. State, 740 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999).

A review of the record discloses that Potter’s 3.850 motion was untimely filed as there was well over a two-year time span between the date that his conviction and sentence became final and the date that he filed the instant motion for post-conviction relief. Also, none of the applicable exceptions to the limitations period are present. See Zirio v. State, 762 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

[520]*520As to his claim under rule 3.800(a), that rule is limited to the correction of illegal sentences which do not require an evidentiary hearing and his contentions do not support such a result. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); Adlington v. State, 735 So.2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

For these reasons, we affirm the denial of Potter’s motion for post-conviction relief.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The opinion filed in this case on August 30, 2000 is vacated and withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place. The appellant, Gary P. Potter, appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate an illegal sentence entered after a bench trial conducted approximately seventeen years ago. In the motion filed below, for the first time, Potter alleged that he was incompetent to stand trial when his trial was held, citing both rule 3.800(b) and rule 3.850(b)(1) and (2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He relies on Jones v. State, 740 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999).

A review of the record discloses that Potter’s 3.850 motion was untimely filed as there was well over a two-year time span between the date that his conviction and sentence became final and the date that he filed the instant motion for post-conviction relief. Also, none of the applicable exceptions to the limitations period are present. See Zirio v. State, 762 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

[520]*520As to his claim under rule 3.800(a), that rule is limited to the correction of illegal sentences which do not require an evidentiary hearing and his contentions do not support such a result. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); Adlington v. State, 735 So.2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

For these reasons, we affirm the denial of Potter’s motion for post-conviction relief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 So. 2d 519, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13774, 2000 WL 1580572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack