CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM BERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2001-12-14
No. 2D01-4049
FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
801 So. 2d 302 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Berry appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to his Apprendi

claim without comment. See Jones v. State, 791 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Although the trial court failed to address Berry’s second claim, we affirm as to it because, as presented, it is not cognizable in a postconviction proceeding. See McDaniel v. State, 683 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that claim that special condition of probation was illegal was not cognizable pursuant to rule 3.800(a)); Hardman v. State, 584 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that challenge to condition of probation could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore could not be raised pursuant to rule 3.850).

Affirmed.

FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur. . Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Hill v. State, 912 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
    …rule 3.800(a). The claim should have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely rule 3.850 motion. See Cook v. State, 816 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We, therefore, affirm the denial of Hill’s unaddressed rule 3.800(a) claim. Cf. Berry v. State, 801 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming a rule 3.850 claim that the trial [*611] court failed to address because it was not cognizable in a postconviction proceeding). Affirmed. FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw