RICKY EDWARD YARBROUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1989-04-06
No. 88-1743
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
540 So. 2d 267 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1989)

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.


Holding

The appellate court held that the defendant waived the issues raised in his post-conviction motion by failing to properly present them. The court affirmed the conviction without prejudice to file a proper motion.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft without reserving appellate issues. He later filed a post-conviction motion challenging the factu…

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.


Opinion of the Court
BARFIELD, Judge.

BARFIELD, Judge.

Ricky Edward Yarbrough, after pleading nolo contendere to third-degree felony grand theft1 without reserving any issue for appellate review, appeals an order denying his post-conviction motion to vacate and set aside his sentence, on the grounds that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the factual basis of his plea, pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172, and that he was incorrectly convicted of grand theft.2 We hold that Yarbrough waived both these issues on appeal in that the matters were not properly before this court by his rule 3.850 motion. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction without prejudice to his right to bring a proper rule 3.850 motion.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . The state mistakenly refers to § 812.014(2)(b)(1), as the statute violated, and the trial court convicted appellant of the same. We note for the record that the proper statute violated was § 812.014(2)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (1987).

. Yarbrough argues that the trial court improperly added Florida sales tax to the market value of the stolen property for the purpose of determining the criminal penalty under the theft statute. We do not address the merits of this issue in affirming his conviction.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw