Roesch v. State, 819 So. 2d 862

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).¹ Accordingly, the lower court did not err in denying appellant‘s legally insufficient motion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Notes

1

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).

Case Details

Case Name: Roesch v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: May 28, 2002

Citations: 819 So. 2d 862; 2002 WL 1049744; 1D01-1157

Docket Number: 1D01-1157

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.