Bateman v. State

764 So. 2d 769, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8774, 2000 WL 955598
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 12, 2000
DocketNo. 1D00-1577
StatusPublished

This text of 764 So. 2d 769 (Bateman 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
Bateman v. State, 764 So. 2d 769, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8774, 2000 WL 955598 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion on the ground that it was untimely filed. Appellant’s motion was properly filed within two years of the time that Appellant’s judgment and sentence became final. See Borghese v. State, 694 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(citing Gust v. State, 535 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for reconsideration of Appellant’s motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, C.J., BOOTH and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Related

Gust v. State
535 So. 2d 642 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Borghese v. State
694 So. 2d 148 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
764 So. 2d 769, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8774, 2000 WL 955598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bateman-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.