Summary
holding that "double jeopardy challenges are not cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding because they are attacks on the underlying convictions, not the sentences"
Summary of this case from State v. WilliamsOpinion
Case No. 5D02-3240
Opinion filed November 15, 2002
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Shawn L. Briese, Judge.
Robert McCraney, Crawfordville, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
We affirm the summary denial of McCraney's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, seeking to correct an illegal sentence. In essence, McCraney attacks his convictions for robbery, aggravated assault and grand theft, on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court found he had waived double jeopardy claims because he entered into a negotiated plea.
The defendant filed his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because his attack on his 1991 conviction and sentence was well beyond the time limit for filing a rule 3.850 motion, the trial court treated the motion as a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Double jeopardy challenges are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding because they are attacks on the underlying convictions, not the sentences. See Sanders v. State, 621 So.2d 723 5th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 629 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1993); State v. Spella, 567 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Further, the time for McCraney's filing of a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 has long passed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, SHARP, W., and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.