Suto v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Suto v. State

422 So. 2d 924, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21454

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 22, 1982

DocketNo. 82-1290

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 422 So. 2d 924 (Suto 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

Suto v. State, 422 So. 2d 924, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21454 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

Suto appeals an order of the trial court summarily denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Suto was convicted of two counts of grand theft and two counts of burglary of a dwelling. His convictions were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. Suto v. State, 400 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Suto alleges the following three grounds for relief in his rule 3.850 motion: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for suppression of evidence; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial and (3) that his fifteen year sentence for burglary in case 79-2455 was in excess of the maximum authorized by law.

Issues which were or could have been raised on a direct appeal are not cognizable grounds for relief under rule 3.850. Hargrave v. State, 396 So.2d 1127 (Fla.1981); Owens v. State, 397 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Grounds (1) and (2) of Suto’s motion could have been raised on direct appeal. Suto’s claim directed to his sentence for burglary in case 79-2455 is wholly without merit. The body of the information filed in said case indicates that the burglary was of a dwelling. Since burglary of a dwelling is a second degree felony, the trial judge was authorized in sentencing Suto to the maximum sentence of fifteen years. See sections 810.02(3) section 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).

Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the rule 3.850 motion is AFFIRMED.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

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

RYDER, Judge.

Suto appeals an order of the trial court summarily denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Suto was convicted of two counts of grand theft and two counts of burglary of a dwelling. His convictions were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. Suto v. State, 400 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Suto alleges the following three grounds for relief in his rule 3.850 motion: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for suppression of evidence; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial and (3) that his fifteen year sentence for burglary in case 79-2455 was in excess of the maximum authorized by law.

Issues which were or could have been raised on a direct appeal are not cognizable grounds for relief under rule 3.850. Hargrave v. State, 396 So.2d 1127 (Fla.1981); Owens v. State, 397 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Grounds (1) and (2) of Suto’s motion could have been raised on direct appeal. Suto’s claim directed to his sentence for burglary in case 79-2455 is wholly without merit. The body of the information filed in said case indicates that the burglary was of a dwelling. Since burglary of a dwelling is a second degree felony, the trial judge was authorized in sentencing Suto to the maximum sentence of fifteen years. See sections 810.02(3) section 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).

Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the rule 3.850 motion is AFFIRMED.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 924, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suto-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack