Adlington v. State

599 So. 2d 1047, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6465, 1992 WL 115790
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 3, 1992
DocketNo. 92-0861
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

Related

Toler v. State
818 So. 2d 639 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Borders v. State
643 So. 2d 110 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
599 So. 2d 1047, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6465, 1992 WL 115790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adlington-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.