Alcantara 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 ANTONIO L. ALCANTARA, JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) _____________________________________ ) Case No. 2D03-5067 Opinion filed December 15, 2004. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Harry M. Rapkin, Judge. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Brad Permar, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. DAVIS, Judge. Antonio L. Alcantara, Jr., appeals his conviction for attempted seconddegree murder. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to treat certain letters he sent to the judge as a motion to withdraw plea, in denying his motion to correct sentence, and in failing to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent him at a hearing on the purported motion to withdraw plea. This case comes to us in a peculiar procedural posture. After Alcantara was adjudicated following his entry of a plea, he sent two letters to the trial court, alleging grounds that could potentially support the withdrawal of his plea. However, Alcantara did not request such relief in the letters, and the trial court did not respond. Although counsel subsequently attempted to revive the grounds alleged in the letters using the vehicle of a motion to correct sentence, the trial court denied the motion for two reasons: (1) the motion failed to raise a sentencing issue, and (2) the letters were facially insufficient to constitute a motion to withdraw plea. While we agree with the trial court and affirm, we do so without prejudice to Alcantara filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(a)(5), alleging that he entered his plea involuntarily, if that is appropriate. Affirmed. FULMER and KELLY, 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.