Caldwell v. State

691 So. 2d 49, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3242, 1997 WL 163377
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 9, 1997·No. No. 96-05082·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the excellent order of the trial court which denied Charles Caldwell’s motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The order shows that the trial judge recognized each of Caldwell’s arguments, then correctly analyzed and ruled on each one. This type of order is much preferred to a simple “motion denied” order that lacks analysis or even recognition of a defendant’s arguments. We acknowledge that a “motion denied” order may be legally sufficient, but point out that, unlike the trial court’s order in this, case, such an order completely fails to inform this court, and more importantly, a pro se defendant, of the reason for the denial.

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

Caldwell v. State, 691 So. 2d 49, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3242, 1997 WL 163377 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

691 So. 2d 49 (Caldwell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Green v. State
691 So. 2d 49 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)