Steed v. State
Steed v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion which attempted to challenge his 1986 plea to escape in this case. The motion does not establish an “illegal sentence” that can be corrected at any time under the rule. Instead, the motion attempts to bring procedurally barred and untimely challenges to the conviction. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.
Appellant alleges in Ground 1 that his fifteen year sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. This allegation is false as escape is a second-degree felony. § 944.40, Fla. Stat. (1985). Appellant also claims that he was convicted of a non-existent offense and that the information was defective because it did not allege that the
The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures, including forfeiture of gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Appellant is cautioned that further frivolous filing may result in additional sanctions such as a bar on pro se filing in this court. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
Affirmed. Appellant referred for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.