DOUGLAS COOGLE, APPELLANT,
v.
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 defendant failed to preserve issues regarding jail credit and the knowing entry of his plea for appellate review.
[1] A defendant must contemporaneously object or file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) to preserve for appellate review an issue concerning th…
[2] A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere must file a motion to withdraw the plea to preserve for appellate review a claim that the trial court entered a sentence…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDouglas Coogle pleaded guilty to burglary, grand theft, and marijuana possession, and to violating community control, in exchange for concurrent sente…
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 Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
In this appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm the judgments and sentences imposed against Douglas Coogle.
Coogle was charged with burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and misdemeanor possession of marijuana in case 00-19319. He committed these offenses while on community control. Coogle pleaded guilty to the charges in case 00-19319 and to violating his community control in case 99-03355 in exchange for concurrent sentences of forty-five months in prison. In case 00-19319, Coogle was sentenced to forty-five months in prison on the burglary and grand theft charges and thirty days on the possession charge. He was credited with twenty-eight days of time served. In case 99-03355, Coogle was sentenced to a concurrent term of forty-five months in prison for the violation of community control. He received 237 days of credit for time served.
Appellate counsel raises two issues of possible merit: 1) whether Coogle received the correct amount of credit for time served, and 2) whether his plea was knowingly entered since Coogle alleged that he was led to believe he would receive 237 days of credit for time served in both cases. Because Coogle failed to contemporaneously object or file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) challenging the amount of jail credit awarded, he has failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Additionally, due to his failure to file a motion to withdraw his plea, Coogle has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether his plea was knowingly entered. See Meriweather v. State, 793 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere must file a motion to withdraw plea in order to preserve a claim that the trial court entered a sentence which exceeded the terms of the plea agreement); see also Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to any right Coogle may have to file a motion for postconviction relief.
Affirmed.
GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirkland v. State, 830 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…her v. State, 793 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We therefore affirm Kirkland’s sentence without prejudice to any right he may have to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Coogle v. State, 811 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Affirmed. BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Schultz v. State, 793 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)