Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

650 So. 2d 1084

Mitchell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 21, 1995

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-02-21

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1998

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a]s for appellant's second ground relating to youthful offender sentencing, such is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hinson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-02-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ERVIN, Judge.

¶1We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence, *1085because appellant has failed to show how his Leon County sentences are illegal. The 35-year sentences for the armed robbery convictions were within the statutory maximum,1 and, in accordance with the plea, the Leon County sentences were directed to be served concurrently to the sentences imposed in Du-val County. To the extent appellant attempts to attack the legality of the 75-year Duval County murder sentence, such is a matter that can only be raised before the Duval County Circuit Court.

¶2As for appellant’s second ground relating to youthful offender sentencing, such is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), but rather should have been raised by direct appeal or by motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

¶3AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.

¶4. See 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981) (first degree armed robbery punishable "by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment”).
/650/so2d/1084 · .json · Public domain