Chippas v. State, 84-1631
| Decision Date | 30 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1631,84-1631 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 297,482 So.2d 528 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 297 William CHIPPAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William Chippas, Avon Park, pro se.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ellen D. Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief. Chippas was originally convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to traffic and for trafficking in cannabis. The court imposed an eight-year sentence on the conspiracy count and a thirty-year split sentence on the trafficking count (twelve years in prison followed by eighteen years probation). The sentences were affirmed on appeal. In January, 1984, the thirty-year split sentence was vacated by the trial court pursuant to Villery v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981). Chippas was resentenced and did not appeal the resentences. In May, 1984, Chippas filed a motion for review under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 contending he should have been resentenced under the sentencing guidelines.
We conclude that the motion for post-conviction relief was properly denied. Matters which could have been raised on direct appeal may not be considered by motion under rule 3.850. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 453 So.2d 388 (Fla.1984); McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983). Furthermore, rule 3.850 has been amended, effective January 1, 1985, to state:
This rule does not authorize relief based upon grounds which could have or should have been raised at trial and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence.
The Florida Bar Re Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 3.850), 460 So.2d 907 (Fla.1984).
Here Chippas was entitled to elect sentencing under the guidelines at his resentencing hearing. See Reid v. State, 460 So.2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). However, the denial of his request to be sentenced under the guidelines was known at the time of sentencing and the alleged error could have been raised on direct appeal. Since the motion raised an issue which could have been addressed on appeal, the order of the trial court denying relief is affirmed. See Bass v. State, 478 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) ()...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Senior v. State, 86-1915
...So.2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Richardson v. State, 491 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986); Chippas v. State, 482 So.2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Adams v. State, 462 So.2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Exceptions to this rule are provided by Florida Rule of Criminal Proc......
-
Wright v. State, BJ-132
...1st DCA 1984); Knight v. State, 455 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Adams v. State, 483 So.2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Chippas v. State, 482 So.2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). counsel failed to advise him that he was entitled to elect guideline sentencing. We have determined that this constitutes......
-
Carter v. State, BL-255
...alleged error should have been raised on direct appeal. Thus, that ground also is not cognizable by 3.850 motion. See Chippas v. State, 482 So.2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Since the allegations in appellant's motion do not state grounds for which relief can be granted, the trial court's deni......