DUANE WALKER
v.
STATE
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.
A defect in a charging document that omits a required element for sentencing enhancement is cured by the defendant's explicit waiver of such defect during the plea colloquy.
[1] A defect in a charging document that omits a required element for sentencing enhancement is cured when the defendant explicitly waives the defect during the plea colloquy…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“defect in the charging document, which omitted a required element for sentencing enhancement, was cured by defendant's explicit waiver of such defect during plea colloquy”
The court's statement of the applicable law from Bradley v. State
Duane Walker appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved a charging document defect and a successive motion under…
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 Sentencing Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Bradley v. State, 3 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 2009) (holding that defect in the charging document, which omitted a required element for sentencing enhancement, was cured by defendant’s explicit waiver of such defect during plea colloquy); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(h)(2) (providing: “A second or successive motion is an extraordinary pleading. Accordingly, a court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the defendant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure or there was no good cause for the failure of the defendant or defendant's counsel to have asserted those grounds in a prior motion.”)
2