Adam Benjamin Hunt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adam Benjamin Hunt v. State

145 So. 3d 900, 2014 WL 3928296, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12436

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 2014

Docket4D14-2075

StatusPublished

This text of 145 So. 3d 900 (Adam Benjamin Hunt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adam Benjamin Hunt v. State, 145 So. 3d 900, 2014 WL 3928296, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12436 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Adam Benjamin Hunt’s motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) because he has not demonstrated entitlement to relief under that rule. His challenges suggest possible claims of ineffective assistance of defense counsel and involuntary plea. Our affirmance is without prejudice to his right to file a motion for post-conviction relief in compliance with the verification and content requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, within thirty days of the date of this court’s mandate. A rule 3.850 motion filed within that deadline will be considered timely filed. Orosco v. State, 801 So.2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Affirmed.

MAY, FORST and KLINGENMITH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Adam Benjamin Hunt’s motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) because he has not demonstrated entitlement to relief under that rule. His challenges suggest possible claims of ineffective assistance of defense counsel and involuntary plea. Our affirmance is without prejudice to his right to file a motion for post-conviction relief in compliance with the verification and content requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, within thirty days of the date of this court’s mandate. A rule 3.850 motion filed within that deadline will be considered timely filed. Orosco v. State, 801 So.2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Affirmed.

MAY, FORST and KLINGENMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 So. 3d 900, 2014 WL 3928296, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adam-benjamin-hunt-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack