ROBIN CARL WILSON A/K/A ROBERT CARL WILSON, 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 held that the appellant's driving privileges were revoked due to a separate conviction, not the one he pleaded guilty to in 1998.
Robin Wilson pleaded guilty to felony possession of cocaine and driving as an habitual traffic offender in 1998. He later admitted to violating probat…
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 Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robin Carl Wilson a/k/a Robert Carl Wilson appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence and judgment. We affirm.
On September 9, 1998, Wilson pled guilty to felony possession of cocaine, and driving as an habitual traffic offender. Wilson was adjudicated guilty and placed on one-year concurrent probation in both cases with 150 hours of community service and completion of a safe driving program. In May 1999, Wilson admitted to violating his probation and was sentenced to 120 days in prison. In October 2000, Wilson filed a motion to vacate plea, judgment and sentence, which the circuit court denied. Wilson’s driving privileges were indefinitely suspended as far back as 1994 and through 2000 for, among other things, repeatedly failing to appear for traffic summonses, seven prior convictions and two withholds of adjudication for driving w/hile his license was suspended. In April, 2000 his driving privileges were revoked for five years.
Wilson complains here that his driving privileges were revoked as a direct result of his 1998 guilty plea, and that had he known that his driving privileges would be revoked he would not have entered into the plea agreement. However, the record clearly indicates that Wilson’s driving privileges were revoked as a result of a conviction which occurred in April, 2000, a separate and distinct conviction from the September 1998 conviction of which Wilson here complains. As a consequence we decline to set aside the conviction and sentence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ALI v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…roperly labeled as a rule 3.800 motion”). Additionally, despite the State’s argument to the contrary, the relief which Defendant requests is cognizable under rule 3.850. See Garcia v. State, 10 So. 3d 687, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Clemons v. State, 777 So. 2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Valladares v. State, 754 So. 2d 190, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Considering Defendant’s motion under rule 3.850, we find the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion. “[W]here timely appearance for sentencing is ma…