JAMES ALLAN ROESCH A/K/A GERARD DOHERTY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JAMES ALLAN ROESCH A/K/A GERARD DOHERTY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
819 So. 2d 862
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
James Allan Roesch challenges an order denying his motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea. The motion, which was later amended was timely filed after sentencing, and is thus governed by rule 3.170(£), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. None of the grounds raised in the motion are cognizable under this rule, which limits the grounds to those provided in rule 9.140(b)(2)(B).1 Accordingly, the lower court did not err in denying appellant’s legally Insufficient motion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur. . Rule 3.170(2) contains a scrivener's error. The cross-reference in that rule to rule 9.140(b)(2)(B) should actually be to rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(emphasis added).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Partlow, 840 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2003)…eration be given to an amendment of rule 3.170 that will permit a defendant to seek withdrawal of a plea after sentencing for “good cause” for a defined period of time, independent of the narrow criteria of rule 3.170(l). See, e.g., Roesch v. State, 819 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (none of grounds raised in defendant’s rule 3.170(l) motion were cognizable under rule). In this case, however, even under our current rules, I would allow the defendant to withdraw his plea pursuant to a motion filed only…
-
Hulett v. State, 830 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…. . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(1) contains a scrivener's error. The cross reference in that rule to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(B)(I)-(v) should actually be to rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(a)-(e). See Roesch v. State, 819 So. 2d 862, 863 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).…