Caldwell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Caldwell v. State

691 So. 2d 49, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3242, 1997 WL 163377

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1997

DocketNo. 96-05082

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 691 So. 2d 49 (Caldwell 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 49, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3242, 1997 WL 163377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldwell-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack