KEVIN SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for attempted burglary, rejecting all four points of appeal and declining to address a sentencing challenge without the defendant's informed consent to resentencing risk.
A conviction for attempted burglary is affirmed where the appellant's four points of appeal lack merit and the appellant has not authorized challenge to his sentence despite potential Villery grounds.
[1] An appellate court may decline to entertain a sentencing challenge on appeal when the defendant has not specifically authorized the attack after being fully advised of th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKevin Scott was convicted of attempted burglary in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and sentenced accordingly.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attempted Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant Kevin Scott appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence for attempted burglary entered in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. Scott raised four points for reversal of his conviction, none of which we find persuasive. In the Interest of M. E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla.1979); Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla.3d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So. 2d 179 (Fla.1970); Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 179 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1965).
In addition, Scott’s attack on his sentence based on Villery v. The Florida Probation & Parole Commission, 396 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1981), will not be entertained upon this appeal, although on its face it appears to be well-founded, in view of the representations of his counsel that Scott himself did not specifically authorize this attack after being fully advised of the more severe sentence which could be imposed upon resentencing by the trial court should the original sentence be vacated. We, therefore, treat the Villery point as not having been made here without prejudice to Scott to file a motion to vacate his sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 based on Villery after being fully advised in the premises.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Villery v. The Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 396 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1980)
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- In the Interest of M. E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1979)
- Lincoln R. Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- State v. Lietch, 237 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1970)
- State v. Darnell, 237 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1970)
- Crum v. State, 179 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1965)
- Warshaw v. Lavery Inv. Co., 179 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1965)