Sharife v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sharife v. Moore

795 So. 2d 105, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7836, 2001 WL 617506

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-2963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 795 So. 2d 105 (Sharife v. Moore) 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

Sharife v. Moore, 795 So. 2d 105, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7836, 2001 WL 617506 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Malik Sharife filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, in which he alleged that his confinement was illegal because he had never been committed to the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. We deny the petition because his own attachments to his petition below conclusively refuted this claim. See also § 921.16(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). We do not reach any issue eon-cerning whether the State has violated the terms of the plea agreement or whether Sharife should be entitled to withdraw his plea. Those issues may only be raised through a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 claim in the sentencing court. See, e.g., Colon-Morales v. State, 743 So.2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, our denial is without prejudice to Sharife to seek the appropriate remedy in the appropriate court.

ERVIN, MINER and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Malik Sharife filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, in which he alleged that his confinement was illegal because he had never been committed to the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. We deny the petition because his own attachments to his petition below conclusively refuted this claim. See also § 921.16(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). We do not reach any issue eon-cerning whether the State has violated the terms of the plea agreement or whether Sharife should be entitled to withdraw his plea. Those issues may only be raised through a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 claim in the sentencing court. See, e.g., Colon-Morales v. State, 743 So.2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, our denial is without prejudice to Sharife to seek the appropriate remedy in the appropriate court.

ERVIN, MINER and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 So. 2d 105, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7836, 2001 WL 617506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharife-v-moore-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack