WAYNE MCLEOD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
WAYNE MCLEOD, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
890 So. 2d 553
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2005)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Wayne McLeod appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion, in which he contended that he should not have been convicted of failure to register as a sex offender. It appears that Mr. McLeod is not challenging his sentence. Instead, he is attempting to challenge his conviction. A challenge to a conviction is not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). See e.g., Cook v. State, 885 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Oxendine v. State, 852 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Est. OF Genevieve A. Williams v. Kevin F. Jursinski, P.A., 160 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…the civil case, despite the pending motion to compel arbitration. Accordingly, we reverse the order compelling arbitration and remand the case for further proceedings without Jursinski as a party. See Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. Jupiter Mortg. Corp., 890 So. 2d 553, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Once a voluntary dismissal has been entered, the trial court is divested of in personam jurisdiction. If the voluntary dismissal is entered as to only one of several defendants, the court loses jurisdiction qver that partic…
-
Siboni v. Allen, 52 So. 3d 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ion as to all parties. Thus, what Appellees labeled a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Appellant, should have been a notice of dropping party filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250(b).2 Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. Jupiter Mortgage Corp., 890 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). If there was only one defendant, or if Appellees intended to dismiss the action in its entirety, rule 1.420(a)(1) would have been the correct vehicle. Bay View Inn v. Friedman, 545 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). When Appellees fi…
-
Fonseca v. Regions Bank (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…0(a)(1). In interpreting these rules, Florida courts have determined that “where a plaintiff intends to dismiss only one of several parties, rule 1.250(b) is the appropriate vehicle for dropping a party.” Nat’l Bank of Com. v. Jupiter Mortg. Corp., 890 So. 2d 553, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Conversely, if “there is only one defendant or if the plaintiff intends to dismiss the action as to all defendants, rule 1.420(a)(1) is the operative rule.” Id.; see also Bay View Inn, Inc. v. Friedman, 545 So. 2d 417, 4…
Authorities Cited
- Chutney Oxendine v. State, 852 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Cook v. State, 885 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)