Roesch v. State
This text of 819 So. 2d 862 (Roesch 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
James Allan ROESCH a/k/a Gerard Doherty, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
*863 Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
James Allan Roesch challenges an order denying his motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea. The motion, which was later amended was timely filed after sentencing, and is thus governed by rule 3.170(l), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. None of the grounds raised in the motion are cognizable under this rule, which limits the grounds to those provided in rule 9.140(b)(2)(B).[1] Accordingly, the lower court did not err in denying appellant's legally insufficient motion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
NOTES
[1] Rule 3.170(l) contains a scrivener's error. The cross-reference in that rule to rule 9.140(b)(2)(B) should actually be to rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(emphasis added).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
819 So. 2d 862, 2002 WL 1049744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roesch-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.