Filed: Aug. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BROSNAN PEARSON HART, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-3542 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed August 24, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Anthony M. Tatti, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BROSNAN PEARSON HART, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-3542 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed August 24, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Anthony M. Tatti, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, T..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BROSNAN PEARSON HART, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-3542 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 24, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Anthony M. Tatti, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Brosnan Pearson Hart appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas following sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l). Hart argues that the lower court erred by ruling on his pro se motion, rather than the subsequent motion prepared by his appointed counsel. We agree, but affirm because the error was harmless. The pro se motion and the motion prepared by counsel were substantially the same. Hence, Hart was not prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling on the pro se motion. AFFIRMED. COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. 2
