Bryant v. State

William Kenneth BRYANT a/k/a William K. Houston, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 30, 2001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-11-30

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2016

11 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A challenge to an underlying conviction may be raised on direct appeal or in a Rule 3.850 motion; it is not cognizable by way of Rule 3.800.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 884 So. 2d 482 - Cabrera v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-11-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1William Kenneth Bryant, Chipley, pro se.

¶2No Appearance for Appellee.

¶3GRIFFIN, J.

¶4William Bryant filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant attacks his 1989 conviction for escape, asserting that he was not under state confinement when the escape occurred. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm.

¶5The defendant does not have a claim of an illegal sentence but is, in fact, attacking the underlying conviction, which he calls an "erroneous charge." This issue could or should have been raised on direct appeal or in a Rule 3.850 motion. It is not cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion.

¶6AFFIRMED.

¶7PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.