Adlington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adlington v. State

599 So. 2d 1047, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6465, 1992 WL 115790

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 3, 1992·No. No. 92-0861·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court order denying appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The motion was filed under both rule 3.800(a) and rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, we note that the motion was not properly filed under rule 3.850, as the oath provided only that the information was true to the best of the affiant’s knowledge. See Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985). Therefore, in this appeal we have not considered those issues cognizable under a properly sworn 3.850 motion since the trial court could have denied relief on the improper jurat ground alone.

HERSEY, STONE and POLEN, 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 order denying appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The motion was filed under both rule 3.800(a) and rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, we note that the motion was not properly filed under rule 3.850, as the oath provided only that the information was true to the best of the affiant’s knowledge. See Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985). Therefore, in this appeal we have not considered those issues cognizable under a properly sworn 3.850 motion since the trial court could have denied relief on the improper jurat ground alone.

HERSEY, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Adlington v. State, 599 So. 2d 1047, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6465, 1992 WL 115790 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

599 So. 2d 1047 (Adlington v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related