Annen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Annen v. State

752 So. 2d 1279, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2901, 2000 WL 283831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-3860

StatusPublished

This text of 752 So. 2d 1279 (Annen 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

Annen v. State, 752 So. 2d 1279, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2901, 2000 WL 283831 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying Michael Scott Annen’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because the motion is refuted by the record attachments. We also affirm the trial court’s denial of Annen’s motion to amend his postconviction relief motion because, under the specific circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in that determination. See McConn v. State, 708 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In his initial brief, Annen raises an issue of newly discovered evidence that may have merit. Therefore, this affirmance is without prejudice to Annen’s filing a timely, facially sufficient motion for postconviction relief based on his claim of newly discovered evidence.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, 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 order summarily denying Michael Scott Annen’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because the motion is refuted by the record attachments. We also affirm the trial court’s denial of Annen’s motion to amend his postconviction relief motion because, under the specific circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in that determination. See McConn v. State, 708 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In his initial brief, Annen raises an issue of newly discovered evidence that may have merit. Therefore, this affirmance is without prejudice to Annen’s filing a timely, facially sufficient motion for postconviction relief based on his claim of newly discovered evidence.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 1279, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2901, 2000 WL 283831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annen-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack