Cano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cano v. State

830 So. 2d 205, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16143, 2002 WL 31487062

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 8, 2002·No. No. 5D02-829·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kirk Cano, appeals the summary denial of his second rule 3.850 motion. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion as successive. See Pope v. State, 702 So.2d 221 (Fla.1997). However, the affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant filing a proper rale 3.800(a) motion challenging his prison releasee reoffender sentence. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000).

AFFIRMED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

HARRIS, GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kirk Cano, appeals the summary denial of his second rule 3.850 motion. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion as successive. See Pope v. State, 702 So.2d 221 (Fla.1997). However, the affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant filing a proper rale 3.800(a) motion challenging his prison releasee reoffender sentence. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000).

AFFIRMED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

HARRIS, GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

Cano v. State, 830 So. 2d 205, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16143, 2002 WL 31487062 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

830 So. 2d 205 (Cano v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related