HOWARD L. DAYTON, SR., 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 a motion to withdraw a plea filed more than thirty days after sentencing is untimely and waives appellate review of issues related to the plea.
Defendant sought to withdraw his plea, claiming it was involuntary due to a misunderstanding about the revocation of gain time. The trial court denied…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l) cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
In this Anders1 appeal, Howard L. Dayton, Sr., seeks review of an order denying his motion to withdraw his plea, admitting that he violated the probationary portion of his split sentence. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Dayton was sentenced to a year and a day for the violation. In his motion to withdraw that plea, Dayton claimed the plea was not voluntarily entered because he did not understand that the Department of Corrections could revoke almost ten years of gain time earned on his original split sentence. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the forfeiture of gain time was a collateral consequence and pointing out that Dayton had waived credit for time served as part of the plea.2
Dayton’s motion to withdraw his plea was untimely, as it was filed more than thirty (30) days after rendition of the sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(l). As explained in Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), the failure to file a timely motion to withdraw a plea waives appellate review of issues related to the plea, and the defendant must seek relief by filing a timely rule 3.850 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Dayton’s motion to withdraw his plea without prejudice to raise the voluntariness of the plea in a timely rule 3.850 motion.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER and MONACO, JJ„ concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. It is not clear from the record that Dayton was waiving credit for prison time and/or gain time, rather than merely waiving credit for time served from the date of his arrest for violating probation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 114 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 2013)…s waives the issue for appellate review, and the defendant is limited to filing a motion pursuant to applicable Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 or 3.851. See, e.g., McKnight v. State, 964 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Dayton v. State, 867 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Weidner v. State, 767 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Griffin’s rule 3.170(0 motion to withdraw plea and we affirm that ruling. 2. Ineffect…
-
McCALL v. State, 941 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…e was missing or stolen from Louis, in order to explain how McCall ended up in the vehicle. As to the testimony concerning the obliterated serial number, the state claims that it was not prejudicial error because it was isolated. See Levi v. State, 867 So. 2d 647, 648-49 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (finding that admission of detective’s testimony referencing discussion with defendant of “other cases pending” was not prejudicial error; statement was isolated, inadvertent, and not focused upon, state did not intention…
-
Woods v. State, 929 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Dayton v. State) 867 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). STEVENSON, C.J., SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)