RICKY CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that allegations in a motion for postconviction relief do not state grounds for relief if the issues raised could have been, or were, addressed on direct appeal.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and kidnapping and appealed his conviction, which was affirmed. He later filed a motion for postconviction relief a…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm.
Appellant was convicted after jury trial of robbery and kidnapping and was sentenced to six and one-half years and thirty years in prison, respectively. He appealed his conviction raising only one issue: whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment, of acquittal on the kidnapping count. This Court affirmed. Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
In his motion for postconviction relief, appellant alleged that the trial judge improperly departed from the guidelines in sentencing him on the robbery charge. That issue could have been reviewed on direct appeal and is not cognizable by motion for postconviction relief. Wahl v. State, 460 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See also Chaplin v. State, 473 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
As his second ground for relief, appellant contends that the trial judge erred in failing to sentence him within the sentencing guidelines on the kidnapping charge despite his affirmative election to be sentenced under the guidelines. However, the denial, if any, of appellant's request to be sentenced under the guidelines was known at the time of sentencing and the alleged error should have been raised on direct appeal. Thus, that ground also is not cognizable by 3.850 motion. See Chippas v. State, 482 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Since the allegations in appellant’s motion do not state grounds for which relief can be granted, the trial court’s denial of the motion is affirmed.
MILLS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Early v. State, 516 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…o correct sentence under Fla.R.Crim. P. 3.800(a) or a post-conviction motion to vacate sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Watkins v. State, 498 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); contra Lowe v. State, 501 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Carter v. State, 491 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Wahl v. State, 460 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We, accordingly, reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to set aside the unlawful thirty-year sentence imposed on the defendant…
Authorities Cited
- Wahl v. State, 460 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Chaplin v. State, 473 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Chippas v. State, 482 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)