Shea v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shea v. State

884 So. 2d 453, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14637, 2004 WL 2237053

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 6, 2004·No. No. 2D03-541·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Shea appeals a judgment for armed trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of al-prazolam. We affirm the convictions without further comment. On appeal, Mr. Shea has raised issues regarding his sentence for armed trafficking. These issues were not raised at sentencing nor did Mr. Shea’s appellate counsel file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to preserve these issues for review. As a result, we conclude that these issues cannot be addressed in this appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 98 (Fla.2000); cf. Harvey v. State, 848 So.2d 1060 (Fla.2003) (refusing to apply Maddox to preclude direct review of “a sentencing error [that] developed that did not exist before the first brief was filed”). We therefore affirm Mr. Shea’s sentence for armed trafficking without prejudice to his right to file an appropriate motion for postconviction relief.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John Shea appeals a judgment for armed trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of al-prazolam. We affirm the convictions without further comment. On appeal, Mr. Shea has raised issues regarding his sentence for armed trafficking. These issues were not raised at sentencing nor did Mr. Shea’s appellate counsel file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to preserve these issues for review. As a result, we conclude that these issues cannot be addressed in this appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 98 (Fla.2000); cf. Harvey v. State, 848 So.2d 1060 (Fla.2003) (refusing to apply Maddox to preclude direct review of “a sentencing error [that] developed that did not exist before the first brief was filed”). We therefore affirm Mr. Shea’s sentence for armed trafficking without prejudice to his right to file an appropriate motion for postconviction relief.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Shea v. State, 884 So. 2d 453, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14637, 2004 WL 2237053 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

884 So. 2d 453 (Shea v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related