SANDOR SUTO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed trial court's summary denial of rule 3.850 motion where grounds could have been raised on direct appeal and sentence was within statutory maximum for burglary of a dwelling.
Issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and a fifteen-year sentence for burglary of a dwelling is authorized by statute.
[1] Issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are not cognizable grounds for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuto was convicted of two counts of grand theft and two counts of burglary of a dwelling; his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Suto appeals an order of the trial court summarily denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Suto was convicted of two counts of grand theft and two counts of burglary of a dwelling. His convictions were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. Suto v. State, 400 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Suto alleges the following three grounds for relief in his rule 3.850 motion: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for suppression of evidence; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial and (3) that his fifteen year sentence for burglary in case 79-2455 was in excess of the maximum authorized by law.
Issues which were or could have been raised on a direct appeal are not cognizable grounds for relief under rule 3.850. Hargrave v. State, 396 So. 2d 1127 (Fla.1981); Owens v. State, 397 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Grounds (1) and (2) of Suto’s motion could have been raised on direct appeal. Suto’s claim directed to his sentence for burglary in case 79-2455 is wholly without merit. The body of the information filed in said case indicates that the burglary was of a dwelling. Since burglary of a dwelling is a second degree felony, the trial judge was authorized in sentencing Suto to the maximum sentence of fifteen years. See sections 810.02(3) section 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).
Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the rule 3.850 motion is AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Irwin v. State, 450 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981); Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981); Suto v. State, 422 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Knight v. State, 461 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ed due to improper venue) among numerous other convictions. Furthermore, both this enhancement issue and an asserted suppression issue should have been presented by direct appeal rather than by a motion for post-conviction relief. See Suto v. State, 422 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Lazarus v. State, 412 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The order appealed is affirmed. MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.…
-
Waldburg v. State, 644 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…presents an issue that could or should have been raised on direct appeal and is thus improper to raise under rule 3.850. Gardner v. State, 550 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Shannon v. State, 406 [*609] So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Suto v. State, 422 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). However, the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to timely assert appellant’s speedy trial right presents a cognizable basis for post-conviction relief. Pippin v. State, 626 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Gunn…
Authorities Cited
- Lenson A. Hargrave v. State, 396 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1981)
- Bryan v. State, 397 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)