SHANNON L. ROACH, 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 motion was facially insufficient because it did not affirmatively allege the date of the offense fell within the window created by Taylor.
Roach filed a motion challenging a mandatory minimum sentence for cocaine trafficking, relying on a prior court decision. The trial court denied the m…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Shannon L. Roach challenges the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm because the claim alleged in Roach’s motion was facially insufficient.
In his motion, Roach contended that the three-year mandatory minimum portion of his sentence for trafficking in cocaine was illegally imposed. He based this claim on our decision in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002). Although Roach’s motion alleged the date of his arrest, the motion was facially insufficient because it did not affirmatively allege that the date of his offense fell within the window created by Taylor. See Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
We note that the circuit court did not deny Roach’s motion as facially insufficient. Instead, it denied the motion without prejudice to refile when the Florida Supreme Court completed its review of the Taylor decision. On May 29, 2002, however, the State voluntarily dismissed its appeal of Taylor. See State v. Taylor, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002) (table). Therefore, our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Roach might have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion raising the same claim. See Sims, 838 So. 2d 658,.
Affirmed.
SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Golden v. State, 870 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…the transcripts requested are a part [*168] of the record for his direct appeal. Golden is not entitled to anything more. A motion to credit jail time is normally a motion authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hines v. State, 842 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, rule 3.800(a) prohibits the filing of such a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Day v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rul…
-
Ladson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…he motion as unauthorized since Ladson’s direct appeal of his judgment and sentence is still pending in this court. A motion for additional jail credit is normally a motion authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hines v. State, 842 So. 2d 999,1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, rule 3.800(a) prohibits the filing of such a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Day v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule…
-
Smith v. State, 912 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…al jail and prison credit. We affirm, as the trial court has properly determined that Smith’s claims, which were not addressed by the trial court’s order of November 14, 2000, should be presented to the Department of Corrections. See Hines v. State, 842 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); Williams v. State, 890 So. 2d 1250, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Downing v. State, 779 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Orosco v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Edrick Lee Hines v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)