Berry v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2D01-4049 Opinion filed December 14, 2001. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; William J. Nelson, Judge. PER CURIAM. Christopher Berry appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to his Apprendi1 claim without comment. See Jones v. State, 791 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Although the trial court failed to address Berry's second claim, we affirm as to 1 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). it because, as presented, it is not cognizable in a postconviction proceeding. See McDaniel v. State, 683 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that claim that special condition of probation was illegal was not cognizable pursuant to rule 3.800(a)); Hardman v. State, 584 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that challenge to condition of probation could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore could not be raised pursuant to rule 3.850). Affirmed. FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
