¶1John Shea appeals a judgment for armed trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of al-prazolam. We affirm the convictions without further comment. On appeal, Mr. Shea has raised issues regarding his sentence for armed trafficking. These issues were not raised at sentencing nor did Mr. Shea’s appellate counsel file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to preserve these issues for review. As a result, we conclude that these issues cannot be addressed in this appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 98 (Fla.2000); cf. Harvey v. State, 848 So.2d 1060 (Fla.2003) (refusing to apply Maddoxto preclude direct review of “a sentencing error [that] developed that did not exist before the first brief was filed”). We therefore affirm Mr. Shea’s sentence for armed trafficking without prejudice to his right to file an appropriate motion for postconviction relief.
884 So. 2d 453
Shea v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided October 6, 2004
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2004-10-06
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 2005
2 state decisions
Relies on 760 So. 2d 89 - Maddox v. State · 848 So. 2d 1060 - Harvey v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2004-10-06
View the full empirical analysis of this case →