Stelmach v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stelmach v. State

806 So. 2d 628, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2933, 2002 WL 180904

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 2002

DocketNo. 4D00-3700

StatusPublished

This text of 806 So. 2d 628 (Stelmach 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

Stelmach v. State, 806 So. 2d 628, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2933, 2002 WL 180904 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lucyna Stelmach, the appellant, pled guilty to violating the terms of her probation and was sentenced to twenty-five months incarceration. On appeal, Stel-mach seeks relief from the consequences of her plea, arguing that she was provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the VOP proceeding, that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate plea colloquy, and that her sentencing scoresheet contained errors. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b) (2)(A)(ii) limits appeals following the entry of a plea to (1) the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) a violation of the plea agreement, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; (3) an involuntary plea, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; and (4) sentencing errors, if preserved. Stelmach neither filed a motion to withdraw her plea nor preserved any alleged errors in her sentence. Consequently, we affirm Stelmach’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to her right to seek any available post-conviction relief.

POLEN, C.J., STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lucyna Stelmach, the appellant, pled guilty to violating the terms of her probation and was sentenced to twenty-five months incarceration. On appeal, Stel-mach seeks relief from the consequences of her plea, arguing that she was provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the VOP proceeding, that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate plea colloquy, and that her sentencing scoresheet contained errors. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b) (2)(A)(ii) limits appeals following the entry of a plea to (1) the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) a violation of the plea agreement, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; (3) an involuntary plea, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; and (4) sentencing errors, if preserved. Stelmach neither filed a motion to withdraw her plea nor preserved any alleged errors in her sentence. Consequently, we affirm Stelmach’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to her right to seek any available post-conviction relief.

POLEN, C.J., STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

806 So. 2d 628, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2933, 2002 WL 180904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stelmach-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.