MICHAEL WESLEY KIRKLAND
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Michael Wesley Kirkland appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea or vacate/set aside his sentence, challenging the lifetime suspension of his driving privileges as an illegal sentence. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed the lower court's denial, finding the issue unpreserved for appellate review because Kirkland failed to obtain a specific ruling on that claim below.
The court affirmed the lower court's denial because Kirkland failed to obtain a ruling on the validity of the driver's license revocation issue below, rendering it unpreserved for appellate review. Even if the lifetime revocation was not mandated by statute, the trial court had discretion under applicable statutes to permanently revoke driving privileges.
[1] A claim for an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)(1) is unpreserved for appellate review if the defendant fails to obtain a ruling on that…
[2] A defendant's failure to obtain a timely ruling from a trial court on a specific issue constitutes a waiver of that matter for appellate purposes.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the failure of a party to get a timely ruling by a trial court constitutes a waiver of the matter for appellate purposes”
Establishes that Kirkland's failure to obtain a ruling on the driver's license revocation issue at trial resulted in waiver of appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKirkland was convicted and sentenced, which included a lifetime suspension of his driving privileges. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea or in the…
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 Timeliness Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
EDWARDS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur. COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
CASE NO. 5D20-1594 COHEN, J., concurring specially.
This appeal stems from the denial of Michael Kirkland’s motion to withdraw plea or in the alternative, to vacate or set aside sentence. Kirkland’s motion was unclear, seeming to classify his arguments either as an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)(1) or under the provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(a)(4), (5), and (6).
This was due, in large part, because the motion was not filed within the twoyear time frame outlined in rule 3.850(b). See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b).
Although raising only one issue on appeal, Kirkland’s motion addressed a number of issues, and it was unclear from that motion whether Kirkland was arguing that the lifetime suspension of his driving privileges was an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a)(1). However, what is clear is that the postconviction court did not specifically address that issue in denying Kirkland’s motion, instead focusing on its untimeliness. 1 Kirkland made no further effort to obtain a ruling on the validity of the driver’s license revocation issue. 1 As part of that analysis, the trial court correctly addressed a claim raised under rule 3.850(b)(2). 2 Upon a review of the sentencing transcript, it appears that the trial court was under the impression that a lifetime driver’s license revocation was required. While Kirkland is correct that a lifetime revocation was not mandated under the circumstances, see § 322.28(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), he did not obtain a ruling on that issue below, rendering it unpreserved for appellate review. See Rose v. State, 787 So. 2d 786, 797 (Fla. 2001) (“As a general rule, the failure of a party to get a timely ruling by a trial court constitutes a waiver of the matter for appellate purposes.” (citation omitted)).
Nonetheless, the trial court arguably had discretion to permanently revoke Kirkland’s driving privileges under the pertinent statutes. See §§ 316.655(2), 322.28(2)(a)2., .28(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Stoletz v. State, 875 So. 2d 572, 575–77 (Fla. 2004) (explaining that trial court had discretion to permanently revoke defendant’s driver’s license when statutes provided only mandatory minimums for period of revocation). Accordingly, I concur with the majority that affirmance is warranted. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rose v. State, 787 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2001)
- Stoletz v. State, 875 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2004)