Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2004

Holmes v. State

Holmes v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided March 17, 2004 · Gross, Gunther, Warner
869 So. 2d 622; 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3322; 2004 WL 515507 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Holmes v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed. The initial brief filed in this appeal raises claims that were not presented in the motion below. Affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to raise these claims by proper motion in the trial court. See Penrod v. State, 621 So.2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). See generally Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 683 (Fla. 1995) (stating that in order to be cognizable on appeal, claims must first be raised in the trial court).

GUNTHER, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.