Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

JAMES ALLAN ROESCH A/K/A GERARD DOHERTY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROESCH v. STATE
(Jun 26, 2002)