Sequoia v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sequoia v. State

678 So. 2d 493, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8921, 1996 WL 471043

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 1996

DocketNo. 96-1717

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 678 So. 2d 493 (Sequoia 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

Sequoia v. State, 678 So. 2d 493, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8921, 1996 WL 471043 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315, we affirm. Appellant has appealed an order denying his Motion for Discharge for a speedy trial violation. The violation he challenges relates to his 1987 conviction to which he pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He cannot now raise the issue to overturn this conviction. Any violation of the speedy trial rule should have been raised in a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. Having failed to so raise it, appellant is precluded from challenging his conviction at this time. Even if we were to consider this a motion for post-conviction relief, it is untimely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).

Affirmed.

WARNER and FARMER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM G, Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315, we affirm. Appellant has appealed an order denying his Motion for Discharge for a speedy trial violation. The violation he challenges relates to his 1987 conviction to which he pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He cannot now raise the issue to overturn this conviction. Any violation of the speedy trial rule should have been raised in a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. Having failed to so raise it, appellant is precluded from challenging his conviction at this time. Even if we were to consider this a motion for post-conviction relief, it is untimely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).

Affirmed.

WARNER and FARMER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM G, Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 So. 2d 493, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8921, 1996 WL 471043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sequoia-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack