Stanford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stanford v. State

813 So. 2d 225, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4252, 2002 WL 497484

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2002

DocketNo. 2D02-62

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 813 So. 2d 225 (Stanford 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

Stanford v. State, 813 So. 2d 225, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4252, 2002 WL 497484 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Johnny R. Stanford timely appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He also timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm both of the trial court’s orders.

However, Stanford suggested in his initial brief that his postconviction motion [226]*226argued that the oral pronouncement of his sentence by the trial court conflicts with the written judgment and sentence. It appears to this court that the issue as now phrased was not contained in Stanford’s motion for postconviction relief. Therefore, this issue is not properly before this court because it was not first raised in the trial court. This court’s affirmance is without prejudice to any right Stanford may have to file a facially sufficient motion to correct illegal sentence raising this issue with the trial court.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

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

STRINGER, Judge.

Johnny R. Stanford timely appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He also timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm both of the trial court’s orders.

However, Stanford suggested in his initial brief that his postconviction motion [226]*226argued that the oral pronouncement of his sentence by the trial court conflicts with the written judgment and sentence. It appears to this court that the issue as now phrased was not contained in Stanford’s motion for postconviction relief. Therefore, this issue is not properly before this court because it was not first raised in the trial court. This court’s affirmance is without prejudice to any right Stanford may have to file a facially sufficient motion to correct illegal sentence raising this issue with the trial court.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

813 So. 2d 225, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4252, 2002 WL 497484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanford-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack