Anthony v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anthony v. State

598 So. 2d 149, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4615, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1000

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1992

DocketNo. 92-01099

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 598 So. 2d 149 (Anthony 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

Anthony v. State, 598 So. 2d 149, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4615, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1000 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Lee Anthony, challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court properly denied the appellant’s motion on [150]*150all of the grounds that he ruled upon, and we, accordingly, affirm.

The court declined to rule on appellant’s contention that his sentence was illegal. Although this contention was raised in the appellant's motion, he had raised the identical argument in a separate motion to correct an illégal sentence. The motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), was pending before the trial court at the time the motion which is the subject of this appeal was ruled upon. The appellant will have an opportunity to appeal any adverse ruling entered in that matter once it is concluded.

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Lee Anthony, challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court properly denied the appellant’s motion on [150]*150all of the grounds that he ruled upon, and we, accordingly, affirm.

The court declined to rule on appellant’s contention that his sentence was illegal. Although this contention was raised in the appellant's motion, he had raised the identical argument in a separate motion to correct an illégal sentence. The motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), was pending before the trial court at the time the motion which is the subject of this appeal was ruled upon. The appellant will have an opportunity to appeal any adverse ruling entered in that matter once it is concluded.

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 So. 2d 149, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4615, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack