Case Name: Ricco A. MOULTRIE, a/k/a Ricardo Moultrie, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-04-24
Citations: 813 So. 2d 1073
Docket Number: No. 2D01-1703
Parties: Ricco A. MOULTRIE, a/k/a Ricardo Moultrie, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PARKER and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 813
Pages: 1073–1074

Head Matter:
Ricco A. MOULTRIE, a/k/a Ricardo Moultrie, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D01-1703.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
April 24, 2002.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Ricco A. Moultrie, a/k/a/ Ricardo Moul-trie, appeals a judgment convicting him of attempted robbery and sentencing him to five years' imprisonment as a prison re-leasee reoffender. See § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (2000). Because Mr. Moultrie entered a plea of no contest to the charge without reserving the right to appeal any issue and was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement, we affirm. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A); § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2000). See also Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979).
While this appeal was pending, Mr. Moultrie filed with this court a copy of a motion designated as a motion for postcon-viction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging that his plea was not voluntary. It is not clear whether this motion was filed with the circuit court. If it was, it was premature and facially insufficient. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c); Bunkley v. State, 800 So.2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Mr. Moul-trie may have to file a proper motion seeking postconviction relief from the circuit court once our mandate issues in this direct appeal.
Affirmed.
PARKER and STRINGER, JJ., concur.