Blount v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blount v. State

801 So. 2d 228, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17211, 2001 WL 1557787

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 2001

DocketNo. 1D01-0295

StatusPublished

This text of 801 So. 2d 228 (Blount 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

Blount v. State, 801 So. 2d 228, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17211, 2001 WL 1557787 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant asserts that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to revoke his probation [229]*229because his probationary period had expired before revocation procedures were initiated. The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s motion without attachments that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim. Because the appellant’s claim is facially sufficient, see Jett v. State, 722 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Boyd v. State, 699 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to either attach record excerpts that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to grant the relief sought.

Reversed and Remanded.

KAHN, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ„ CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant asserts that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to revoke his probation [229]*229because his probationary period had expired before revocation procedures were initiated. The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s motion without attachments that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim. Because the appellant’s claim is facially sufficient, see Jett v. State, 722 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Boyd v. State, 699 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to either attach record excerpts that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to grant the relief sought.

Reversed and Remanded.

KAHN, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ„ CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

801 So. 2d 228, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17211, 2001 WL 1557787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blount-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack