William Whiteley v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

William Whiteley v. State of Florida

192 So. 3d 579, 2016 WL 2897656, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7652

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 2016

Docket4D16-133

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 So. 3d 579 (William Whiteley v. State of Florida) 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

William Whiteley v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 579, 2016 WL 2897656, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7652 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s allegations in his motion to correct an illegal sentence were insufficient to establish that his sentence is illegal. Assuming the-sentencing court erred in considering an outdated PSI as alleged by appellant, this was an error in sentencing procedure that should have been raised on direct appeal. See Shaw v. State, 780 So.2d 188, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion asserting “the trial -court-did not have a proper presentence investigation report” because such a claim could be reviewed only on direct appeal). It did not render the sentence itself illegal.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN/C.J., WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s allegations in his motion to correct an illegal sentence were insufficient to establish that his sentence is illegal. Assuming the-sentencing court erred in considering an outdated PSI as alleged by appellant, this was an error in sentencing procedure that should have been raised on direct appeal. See Shaw v. State, 780 So.2d 188, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion asserting “the trial -court-did not have a proper presentence investigation report” because such a claim could be reviewed only on direct appeal). It did not render the sentence itself illegal.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN/C.J., WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 So. 3d 579, 2016 WL 2897656, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-whiteley-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack