Wolford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wolford v. State

100 So. 3d 242, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19088, 2012 WL 5364684

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-3528

StatusPublished

This text of 100 So. 3d 242 (Wolford 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

Wolford v. State, 100 So. 3d 242, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19088, 2012 WL 5364684 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Rickie A. Wolford, appeals the order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He contends that the sentence imposed after conviction on two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct was vindictive. As the trial court ruled, however, and as Appellant concedes in his brief, a claim of vindictive sentencing is not renewable under rule 3.800. He asks that we send the motion back for amendment or give him time to [243]*243refile a proper motion with the court. There is nothing to amend, however, and Appellant has ample time under the Rules of Criminal Procedure to file a legally sufficient motion. The appealed order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, COHEN and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Rickie A. Wolford, appeals the order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He contends that the sentence imposed after conviction on two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct was vindictive. As the trial court ruled, however, and as Appellant concedes in his brief, a claim of vindictive sentencing is not renewable under rule 3.800. He asks that we send the motion back for amendment or give him time to [243]*243refile a proper motion with the court. There is nothing to amend, however, and Appellant has ample time under the Rules of Criminal Procedure to file a legally sufficient motion. The appealed order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, COHEN and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 3d 242, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19088, 2012 WL 5364684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolford-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.