McLeod v. State

PER CURIAM. Wayne McLeod appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion, in which he contended that he should not have been convicted of failure to register as a sex offender. It appears that Mr. McLeod is not challenging his sentence. Instead, he is attempting to challenge his conviction. A challenge to a conviction is not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). See e.g., Cook v. State, 885 So.2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Oxendine v. State, 852 So.2d 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). AFFIRMED. PLEUS, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.