From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oxendine v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jun 27, 2003
852 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

finding that issue sought to raised by criminal defendant “was waived” by entering a plea and then failing to file a “timely 3.850 motion alleging involuntary plea or based upon ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Summary of this case from Evans v. State

Opinion

Case No. 5D03-1623.

Opinion filed June 27, 2003.

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County, Robert K. Mathis, Judge.

Chutney Oxendine, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.


Appellant appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. In St. Johns County, three of appellant's cases were consolidated, and appellant entered nolo contendere pleas to all charges including two separate offenses of felony driving while license suspended, revoked or cancelled ("DWLS"). Appellant now claims that he should not have been convicted of these felonies because one of the prior DWLS misdemeanor convictions should not have been used to reclassify the current offenses to felonies. Appellant asserts that his prior offense was committed under a previous statutory version of DWLS which did not require "knowledge" as an element. See generally Huss v. State, 771 So.2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Appellant mistakenly characterizes his motion to correct illegal sentence as being filed pursuant to "Rule 3.850(a)." The instant motion could not be treated as a 3.850 motion as it would be untimely. Appellant's direct appeal resulted in an affirmance, the mandate issuing on February 9, 2001. (Appeal No. 5D00-1619). Appellant's motion was "filed" under the mailbox rule more than two years later on April 9, 2003. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(b).

Rule 3.800(a) provides a remedy for the correction of illegal sentences. Appellant's argument is an attack on his DWLS convictions as he claims he should have been convicted of misdemeanors, not felonies. Because appellant entered nolo contendere pleas to two felony DWLS charges, this issue was waived. Appellant's remedy would have been a timely 3.850 motion alleging involuntary plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. See Caples v. State, 790 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., and PETERSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Oxendine v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jun 27, 2003
852 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

finding that issue sought to raised by criminal defendant “was waived” by entering a plea and then failing to file a “timely 3.850 motion alleging involuntary plea or based upon ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Summary of this case from Evans v. State
Case details for

Oxendine v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHUTNEY OXENDINE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jun 27, 2003

Citations

852 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Winters v. State

Affirmed. See Waiter v. State, 965 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Nedd v. State, 855 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA…