Brifiel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brifiel v. State

920 So. 2d 1224, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2252, 2006 WL 398519

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 22, 2006·No. No. 4D05-4210·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motions for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, because they were impermissibly filed beyond the two-year time limitation. However, as it appears the trial court has never ruled on appellant’s supplemental motion filed March 16, 2004, our affir-mance is without prejudice to obtaining a ruling on the supplemental motion.

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motions for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, because they were impermissibly filed beyond the two-year time limitation. However, as it appears the trial court has never ruled on appellant’s supplemental motion filed March 16, 2004, our affir-mance is without prejudice to obtaining a ruling on the supplemental motion.

Affirmed.

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Brifiel v. State, 920 So. 2d 1224, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2252, 2006 WL 398519 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

920 So. 2d 1224 (Brifiel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.