Sharpe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sharpe v. State

889 So. 2d 1007, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19994, 2004 WL 2996846

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 2004

DocketNo. 1D04-1404

StatusPublished

This text of 889 So. 2d 1007 (Sharpe 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

Sharpe v. State, 889 So. 2d 1007, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19994, 2004 WL 2996846 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set out by the State in its response to our order to show cause, we find that the petition for writ of certiorari in this case is procedurally barred and, in any event, would fail on the merits. On the merits, petitioner cannot show that his license suspension was a direct result of his plea in 1991. See State v. Bolware, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2493, — So.2d -, 2003 WL 22460271 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.31, 2003). Procedurally, petitioner knew within three months after his plea that he would suffer an administrative suspension. His actions show conclusively that he accepted that suspension and sought a hardship license after five years, as then permitted by law. He did not file the present motion to set aside his plea until 2002. This proceeding is thus barred, whether viewed as a motion to set aside a plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(£) or a motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

DENIED.

ERVIN, BARFIELD, and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set out by the State in its response to our order to show cause, we find that the petition for writ of certiorari in this case is procedurally barred and, in any event, would fail on the merits. On the merits, petitioner cannot show that his license suspension was a direct result of his plea in 1991. See State v. Bolware, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2493, — So.2d -, 2003 WL 22460271 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.31, 2003). Procedurally, petitioner knew within three months after his plea that he would suffer an administrative suspension. His actions show conclusively that he accepted that suspension and sought a hardship license after five years, as then permitted by law. He did not file the present motion to set aside his plea until 2002. This proceeding is thus barred, whether viewed as a motion to set aside a plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(£) or a motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

DENIED.

ERVIN, BARFIELD, and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

889 So. 2d 1007, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19994, 2004 WL 2996846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharpe-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack