Bostic v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bostic v. State

631 So. 2d 1146, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1316, 1994 WL 51811

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 1994

DocketNo. 94-0261

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 631 So. 2d 1146 (Bostic 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

Bostic v. State, 631 So. 2d 1146, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1316, 1994 WL 51811 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court found that appellant’s motion was facially insufficient in that it did not contain the information required by rule 3.850(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, did not allege that he would not have been adjudged a habitual offender absent the stipulation, and did not set forth the mitigation factors which should have been considered at sentencing. We agree and affirm. See Mitchell v. State, 581 So.2d 990 (Fla. 1st [1147]*1147DCA 1991); Ricco v. State, 474 So.2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Because the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion has not yet run, our affirmance is without prejudice to the appellant’s ability to file a second, sufficiently detailed motion. Davis v. State, 627 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court found that appellant’s motion was facially insufficient in that it did not contain the information required by rule 3.850(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, did not allege that he would not have been adjudged a habitual offender absent the stipulation, and did not set forth the mitigation factors which should have been considered at sentencing. We agree and affirm. See Mitchell v. State, 581 So.2d 990 (Fla. 1st [1147]*1147DCA 1991); Ricco v. State, 474 So.2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Because the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion has not yet run, our affirmance is without prejudice to the appellant’s ability to file a second, sufficiently detailed motion. Davis v. State, 627 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 So. 2d 1146, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1316, 1994 WL 51811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bostic-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack