Quilling v. State
This text of 940 So. 2d 548 (Quilling 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.
Opinion
Gary C. QUILLING, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Gary C. Quilling, Monticello, Pro Se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the denial of Gary Quilling's motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Quilling misconstrues the mandatory minimum sentencing laws applicable to him. Those laws set forth the minimum, but not the maximum sentences that must be imposed for the designated offenses. The general sentencing statutes establish the maximum penalties. We agree with Mr. Quilling that the trial court misperceived his motion as one filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Mr. Quilling's motion, while lacking merit, was properly filed under rule 3.800 and should not be deemed to be a rule 3.850 motion.
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
940 So. 2d 548, 2006 WL 3039430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quilling-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.