Ashworth v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ashworth v. State

41 So. 3d 1096, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11770, 2010 WL 3191781

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 2010

Docket5D10-2355

StatusPublished

This text of 41 So. 3d 1096 (Ashworth 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

Ashworth v. State, 41 So. 3d 1096, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11770, 2010 WL 3191781 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Donald C. Ashworth entered into a negotiated plea and was sentenced on April 28, 2006. His petition for belated appeal, filed on July 9, 2010, is untimely because it was not filed within the two-year time period and does not meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(A). Therefore, Ash-worth’s petition is dismissed. See Dickson v. State, 22 So.3d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Brown v. State, 826 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). While the untimeliness of his petition is dispositive, we note that, additionally, the petition is facially insufficient because it does not comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(3), including the fact that it is missing a proper oath, sworn to under penalty of perjury.

DISMISSED.

MONACO, C.J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Donald C. Ashworth entered into a negotiated plea and was sentenced on April 28, 2006. His petition for belated appeal, filed on July 9, 2010, is untimely because it was not filed within the two-year time period and does not meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(A). Therefore, Ash-worth’s petition is dismissed. See Dickson v. State, 22 So.3d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Brown v. State, 826 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). While the untimeliness of his petition is dispositive, we note that, additionally, the petition is facially insufficient because it does not comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(3), including the fact that it is missing a proper oath, sworn to under penalty of perjury.

DISMISSED.

MONACO, C.J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 3d 1096, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11770, 2010 WL 3191781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashworth-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack