Ernest T. Keene v. State

Appellant seeks review of the order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion for postcon-viction relief. Appellant’s first claim, that the trial court erred by failing to. give him a downward departure sentence, is merit-less, His second claim, that his conviction for felony DUI was illegal because his prior DUI conviction was too far removed in time, constitutes an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence. This claim should have been raised on direct appeal and is not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Prince v. State, 903 So.2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In his third claim, Appellant asserts…