From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roesch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jun 26, 2002
819 So. 2d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

No. 1D01-1157.

May 28, 2002. Rehearing Denied June 26, 2002.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Don T. Sirmons, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


James Allan Roesch challenges an order denying his motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea. The motion, which was later amended was timely filed after sentencing, and is thus governed by rule 3.170(l), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. None of the grounds raised in the motion are cognizable under this rule, which limits the grounds to those provided in rule 9.140(b)(2)(B). Accordingly, the lower court did not err in denying appellant's legally insufficient motion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Rule 3.170(l) contains a scrivener's error. The cross-reference in that rule to rule 9.140(b)(2)(B) should actually be to rule 9.140(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).

ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Roesch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jun 26, 2002
819 So. 2d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Roesch v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ALLAN ROESCH A/K/A GERARD DOHERTY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jun 26, 2002

Citations

819 So. 2d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

State v. Partlow

I also agree with his recommendation that consideration be given to an amendment of rule 3.170 that will…

Hulett v. State

The cross reference in that rule to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(B)(I)-(v) should actually…