OCTAVIO SANCHEZ, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for relief from an illegal sentence, holding that the motion was properly characterized as a postconviction motion under Rule 3.850 rather than Rule 3.800, and was untimely and successive.
A motion challenging the voluntariness of a plea and the length of sentence must be brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 rather than Rule 3.800, and is subject to the two-year filing deadline and successive motion bar.
[1] A motion challenging the voluntariness of a guilty plea and the length of sentence, which requires an evidentiary hearing to resolve, must be brought under Florida Rule o…
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 intelligenceDefendant Sanchez was convicted in 1991 and filed a motion characterizing it as relief from an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800, but alleging his ple…
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 Procedural Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Although the defendant has characterized his motion as a motion for relief from an illegal sentence brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, it is, in substance, a motion for postconvietion relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, defendant alleged that his plea was not entered voluntarily, as he did not fully understand the number of counts to which he' was pleading or the length of his sentence. Those are issues that cannot be resolved without holding an evidentiary hearing; therefore, the motion should have been brought under rule 3.850. See Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636, 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(postconviction issue requiring evidentiary hearing must be resolved under rule 3.850), approved, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995).
Had defendant properly filed under rule 3.850, his motion would have been untimely because it was filed more than two years after his 1991 conviction. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Moreover, denial of his motion was proper, as it was a successive 3.850 motion. See State v. Salmon, 636 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1994) (allegations that were or could have been made in previous postconvietion motions did not present grounds for relief); Sanchez v. State, 666 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terence A. Frazier v. State, 898 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…e denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he claims that his guilty plea was involuntary because it was coerced by the trial court. We affirm. A claim that a plea is involuntary must be brought under Rule 3.850. Sanchez v. State, 683 So. 2d 606, 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). That rule imposes a two-year time limit for seeking relief in circumstances such as those existing here. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). As we have stated in the past, a “petition for habeas corpus cannot be used to circumvent…
-
State v. Schiano, 696 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…so identified, the judge can set an evidentiary hearing, if required, or “make appropriate disposition of the motion.” Id. At least some of the issues raised by Schi-ano’s motion typically require an evidentiary [*532] hearing. See Sanchez v. State, 683 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Moses, 682 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied, 689 So. 2d 1070 (Fla.1997). On remand, Schiano should be given leave to amend his motion to correct the pleading deficiencies raised by the state. See Panno…
-
Wright v. State, 732 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wnght v. State, 711 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(holding that laches may bar claim for postconviction relief); Smith v. State, 506 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Sanchez v. State, 683 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(holding that trial court’s denial of motion for postconviction relief was proper where allegations were or could have been made in previous motion).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- State v. Salmon, 636 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1994)