Cano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cano v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 8, 2002

DocketNo. 5D02-829

StatusPublished

This text of 830 So. 2d 205 (Cano 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

830 So. 2d 205, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16143, 2002 WL 31487062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cano-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack