Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Cargile v. State

Cargile v. State

939 So. 2d 166, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16359, 2006 WL 2787532
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 29, 2006·No. No. 2D06-2455·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Our affirmance is without prejudice to whatever right Mr. Cargile may have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. See Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23 (Fla.2004).

CASANUEVA, STRINGER, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

Cargile v. State, 939 So. 2d 166, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16359, 2006 WL 2787532 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

939 So. 2d 166 (Cargile v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hitchcock v. State
866 So. 2d 23 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)