Burgess v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burgess v. State

862 So. 2d 943, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 221, 2004 WL 57269

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 14, 2004·No. No. 2D03-2495·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Burgess appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion on the ground that it is facially insufficient. See Saffold v. State, 850 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(3), (4). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Burgess may have to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Saffold, 850 So.2d at 577-78; Cherryhomes v. State, 857 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Affirmed.

FULMER, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Burgess appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion on the ground that it is facially insufficient. See Saffold v. State, 850 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(3), (4). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Burgess may have to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Saffold, 850 So.2d at 577-78; Cherryhomes v. State, 857 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Affirmed.

FULMER, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Burgess v. State, 862 So. 2d 943, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 221, 2004 WL 57269 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

862 So. 2d 943 (Burgess v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related