Burgess v. State

862 So. 2d 943, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 221, 2004 WL 57269
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 14, 2004
DocketNo. 2D03-2495
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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

Related

Gray v. State
868 So. 2d 633 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
862 So. 2d 943, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 221, 2004 WL 57269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.