Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

874 So. 2d 695

Docket No. 4D04-1496.

Cichoski v. State

Sharon M. CICHOSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2004-05-26

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 2007

1 state decisions

Relies on Seabrooks v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-05-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Sharon M. Cichoski, Quincy, pro se.

¶2No appearance on behalf of appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant filed a motion to enforce a plea agreement after being sentenced for violating her probation. In her petition, she claims that she negotiated a sentence with one judge, was given time to accomplish certain tasks, and was then given a different sentence by another judge that was contrary to the plea agreement accepted by the first judge. Appellant appeals the order denying the motion to enforce. We affirm, because the proper method of relief is pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Seabrooks v. State,817 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant filing a proper motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850.

¶5STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

/874/so2d/695 · .json · Public domain