JOHN MICHAEL SHEA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of Methamphetamine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Shea appeals a judgment for armed trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of al-prazolam. We affirm the convictions without further comment. On appeal, Mr. Shea has raised issues regarding his sentence for armed trafficking. These issues were not raised at sentencing nor did Mr. Shea’s appellate counsel file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to preserve these issues for review. As a result, we conclude that these issues cannot be addressed in this appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 98 (Fla.2000); cf. Harvey v. State, 848 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.2003) (refusing to apply Maddox to preclude direct review of “a sentencing error [that] developed that did not exist before the first brief was filed”). We therefore affirm Mr. Shea’s sentence for armed trafficking without prejudice to his right to file an appropriate motion for postconviction relief.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rydberg v. State, 891 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.14.0, and 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999). Nevertheless, this court continues to review cases like this one where unpreserved sentencing errors, some with apparent merit, are argued on appeal. See, e.g., Shea v. State, 884 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Langley v. State, 848 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). This is a waste of the attorney’s time and the court’s resources. It may constitute ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and it leaves the defendant to his own resource…
-
Cazu Soloman v. State, 906 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…CA 1997). Finding no merit to the remaining issues raised on this appeal, we affirm. . Our affirmance in this regard, however, is without prejudice to Soloman raising these claims in any appropriate post-conviction motion. See Burgess v. State, 884 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Harvey v. State, 848 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2003)