UTILE v. STATE (2024)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Will UTILE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D23-2130

Decided: October 16, 2024

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

Will Utile, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence.” Ramirez v. State, 374 So. 3d 71, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Although the instant challenge is to the sufficiency of evidence to support the revocation of probation as opposed to the original “conviction,” the same principles apply. See Prince v. State, 903 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence for the probation revocation is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network