Dunbar v. StateDunbar v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Silberman, Green, Davis
Ahmad Dunbar timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to
Dunbar may, however, be entitled to withdraw his plea. The motion that he filed in the trial court was facially insufficient to obtain such relief. The motion fails to state that Dunbar would not have entered a plea had he known that his sentence was not going to be at the bottom of the sentencing guidelines. See Wilson v. State, 760 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We also note that although Dunbar alleged that his plea was involuntary, he did not seek to withdraw his plea in the trial court.
We therefore affirm the denial of Dunbar‘s motion. This affirmance is without prejudice to Dunbar‘s right to file a facially sufficient motion to withdraw his plea under
Affirmed.
GREEN, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.