MORGAN V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 LAWRENCE MORGAN, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. 3D04-2049 ** Appellee. ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. F00-21538 ** Opinion filed November 24, 2004. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b) (2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mary Barzee, Judge. Lawrence Morgan, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE, GERSTEN and WELLS, JJ. PER CURIAM. Lawrence correct Morgan illegal appeals sentence Procedure 3.800(a). an under We affirm. order denying Florida Rule his of motion to Criminal Defendant-appellant Morgan entered into a plea bargain on six counts of an information. correct illegal sentence, Thereafter he filed a motion to arguing that the statute of limitations had expired on counts three, five, and six prior to the time that the information was filed. He requested that the sentences be vacated on those counts, and the charges dismissed. He did not, however, request withdrawal of the plea. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant has appealed. First, appropriate conviction. a motion procedure to for correct illegal challenging a sentence sentence, but is an not a See Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Since the defendant is attempting to vacate his convictions as well as sentences, the appropriate procedure is a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Second, we agree with Judge Barzee that the statute of limitations claim that the defendant attempts to raise involves a factual issue which cannot be determined from the face of the record and thus cannot be brought under Rule 3.800(a). That is so because the three-year statute of limitations cited by the defendant is subject to being extended for an additional three years when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state. § 775.15(6), Fla. 2 Stat. (1997). Since the information was filed within the period of the three-year extension (if applicable), it would require a factual inquiry to determine whether there was a time bar or not. Thus, under the circumstances present here, the motion would be cognizable only under Rule 3.850, as it requires a factual determination. Affirmed. 3

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.