Saldarreaga v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saldarreaga v. State

875 So. 2d 1270, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8360, 2004 WL 1335725

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-518

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 875 So. 2d 1270 (Saldarreaga 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

Saldarreaga v. State, 875 So. 2d 1270, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8360, 2004 WL 1335725 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm an order denying appellant’s petition for mandamus which the trial court treated as a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request to appoint counsel because his post-conviction motion was not complex and he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Appellant’s first claim that his plea was not binding because it was not formally accepted by the court is without merit. He did not move to withdraw his plea until after sentencing and failed to show prejudice or manifest injustice. Demartine v. State, 647 So.2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). His second claim, that the prosecutor made a false statement at sentencing, was raised on direct appeal and is without merit. Nor is defendant’s plea void based on Noon v. State, 480 So.2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) and Campbell v. State, 453 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The statute on which defendant relies was amended in 1987, after those cases, making those cases irrelevant. His plea was valid. Affirmed.

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm an order denying appellant’s petition for mandamus which the trial court treated as a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request to appoint counsel because his post-conviction motion was not complex and he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Appellant’s first claim that his plea was not binding because it was not formally accepted by the court is without merit. He did not move to withdraw his plea until after sentencing and failed to show prejudice or manifest injustice. Demartine v. State, 647 So.2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). His second claim, that the prosecutor made a false statement at sentencing, was raised on direct appeal and is without merit. Nor is defendant’s plea void based on Noon v. State, 480 So.2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) and Campbell v. State, 453 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The statute on which defendant relies was amended in 1987, after those cases, making those cases irrelevant. His plea was valid. Affirmed.

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

875 So. 2d 1270, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8360, 2004 WL 1335725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saldarreaga-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack