CARL KEIFNER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
CARL KEIFNER, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
896 So. 2d 955
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2005)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that he was improperly sentenced in absentia while incarcerated on unrelated charges, without prejudice to his filing a timely rule 8.850 motion in proper form, in light of Zuluaga v. State, 793 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (claims of improper sentencing in absentia are properly raised in a rule 3.850 motion). We do not have a sufficient record to determine whether, if appellant does file a rule 3.850 motion, it would be successive under rule 3.850(f), and this opinion should not be construed as deciding that issue.
POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herndon v. State, 939 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. We affirm without prejudice to appellant raising issue III in a timely rule 3.850 motion. See Patterson v. State, 904 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Keifner v. State, 896 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Zuluaga v. State, 793 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). As in Patterson, “[w]e do not have a sufficient record to determine whether, if appellant does file a rule 3.850 motion, it [*173] would be successive under rule 3.850(f), and…
Authorities Cited
- Heldrado A. Zuluaga v. State, 793 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)