Bishop v. State
This text of 552 So. 2d 341 (Bishop 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.
Opinion
We affirm, but do so without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file an amended motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court within 90 days of this opinion, containing specific statements as to the contents of the Brady material allegedly improperly denied to the appellant. In Bishop v. State, 527 So.2d 836 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), we affirmed the denial of a similar motion filed by appellant without prejudice to appellant’s right to file again. Our purpose was to give the appellant an opportunity to specifically allege the contents of the Brady material so that the trial court could evaluate appellant’s claim. Appellant filed the same claim again without detailing the contents of the material allegedly denied him. In the interests of justice, we are allowing the appellant one last chance on this issue.
Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to appellant filing another motion in the trial court detailing the exculpatory nature and contents of any Brady material allegedly denied him by the state.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
552 So. 2d 341, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2696, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6512, 1989 WL 139538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.