Scholtes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scholtes v. State

27 So. 3d 175, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1091, 2010 WL 366603

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 3, 2010·No. 4D07-3690·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979). In this appeal pursuant to Anders, 1 Appellant’s pro se brief raises issues of an involuntary plea which were not preserved for appeal by the filing of a motion to withdraw his plea. This affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant’s right to assert such issues in a timely and sufficient rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

1

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979). In this appeal pursuant to Anders, 1 Appellant’s pro se brief raises issues of an involuntary plea which were not preserved for appeal by the filing of a motion to withdraw his plea. This affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant’s right to assert such issues in a timely and sufficient rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

1

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Scholtes v. State, 27 So. 3d 175, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1091, 2010 WL 366603 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

27 So. 3d 175 (Scholtes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related