Potter v. State, 3D00-2209.
| Decision Date | 25 October 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D00-2209.,3D00-2209. |
| Citation | 769 So.2d 519 |
| Parties | Gary P. POTTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gary P. Potter, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, COPE, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The opinion filed in this case on August 30, 2000 is vacated and withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place. The appellant, Gary P. Potter, appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate an illegal sentence entered after a bench trial conducted approximately seventeen years ago. In the motion filed below, for the first time, Potter alleged that he was incompetent to stand trial when his trial was held, citing both rule 3.800(b) and rule 3.850(b)(1) and (2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He relies on Jones v. State, 740 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999).
A review of the record discloses that Potter's 3.850 motion was untimely filed as there was well over a two-year time span between the date that his conviction and sentence became final and the date that he filed the instant motion for post-conviction relief. Also, none of the applicable exceptions to the limitations period are present. See Zirio v. State, 762 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
.
As to his claim under rule 3.800(a), that rule is limited to the correction of illegal sentences which do not require an evidentiary hearing and his contentions do not support such a result. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998)
; Adlington v. State, 735 So.2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
For these reasons, we affirm the denial of Potter's motion for post-conviction relief.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. State, 2D00-2955.
...cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion because an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the allegation. See Potter v. State, 769 So.2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Therefore, the trial court's order is affirmed as to this ruling. As to each of these issues, the trial court also denied ......
-
St. Cyr v. State
...not evaluating his mental health status before sentencing. This claim is not proper for a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Potter v. State, 769 So.2d 519, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Appellant also claimed that the trial court could not revoke his “youthful offender status” following revocation of com......
-
Coto v. State
...is limited to those sentencing issues that can be resolved as a matter of law without an evidentiary determination"); Potter v. State, 769 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ...
-
Kemp v. State
...contention in its response, no evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the issue in the defendant's motion. See Potter v. State, 769 So.2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The defendant's original motion to correct illegal sentence properly addressed the four cases in which he was sentenced: 99-2......