ROBERT MCCRANEY, 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 double jeopardy claims are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding and that the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion had passed.
McCraney filed a motion seeking to correct an illegal sentence, attacking his convictions for robbery, aggravated assault, and grand theft on double j…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the summary denial of McCraney’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, seeking to correct an illegal sentence.1 In essence, MeCra-ney attacks his convictions for robbery, aggravated assault and grand theft, on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court found he had waived double jeopardy claims because he entered into a negotiated plea.
Double jeopardy challenges are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding because they are attacks on the underlying convictions, not the sentences. See Sanders v. State, 621 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 629 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1993); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Further, the time for McCraney’s filing of a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 has long passed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, SHARP, W., and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur. . The defendant filed his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because his attack on his 1991 conviction and sentence was well beyond the time limit for filing a rule 3.850 motion, the trial court treated the motion as a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emmet Black v. State, 914 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Williams, 854 So. 2d 215, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); McCraney v. State, 830 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). STEVENSON, C.J., STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
Bradford B. Banks, Jr. v. State, 211 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…requirement to file a rule 3.850 motion applies to double jeopardy issues raised in the motion. Sanders v. State, 621 So. 2d 723, 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The time for filing the motion pursuant to rule 3.850 expired long ago. See McCraney v. State, 830 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Second, the court also appropriately concluded that Banks was not entitled to ha- [*1106] beas corpus relief because Banks was improperly seeking relief on an issue that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a timely rul…
-
Mann v. State, 137 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…SUAREZ, J. Affirmed; See Robinson v. State, 816 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); McCraney v. Florida, 830 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanders v. State, 621 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)