Carnet v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carnet v. State

223 So. 3d 1093, 2017 WL 2457192, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8347

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 2017

DocketNo. 3D17-0703

StatusPublished

This text of 223 So. 3d 1093 (Carnet 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

Carnet v. State, 223 So. 3d 1093, 2017 WL 2457192, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8347 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Tucker v. State, 459 So.2d 306, 309 (Fla. 1984) (“We therefore hold that failure to allege venue in an indictment or information is an error of form, not of substance and such a defect will not render the charging instrument void absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant.”); Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893, 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (en banc) (“The case law is clear: The failure to object to a technical deficiency in the charging document constitutes a waiver, and the time to raise a challenge to the charging document is prior to the jury’s verdict so the deficiency can be cured, not after the verdict is rendered.”); Fernandez-Tellez v. State, 89 So.3d 1070, 1070-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“[A] motion for postconviction relief will not be considered if filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence become final, subject to exceptions for newly-discovered evidence, retroactive application of a fundamental constitutional right, or failure of retained counsel to file a timely postconviction motion”).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Tucker v. State, 459 So.2d 306, 309 (Fla. 1984) (“We therefore hold that failure to allege venue in an indictment or information is an error of form, not of substance and such a defect will not render the charging instrument void absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant.”); Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893, 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (en banc) (“The case law is clear: The failure to object to a technical deficiency in the charging document constitutes a waiver, and the time to raise a challenge to the charging document is prior to the jury’s verdict so the deficiency can be cured, not after the verdict is rendered.”); Fernandez-Tellez v. State, 89 So.3d 1070, 1070-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“[A] motion for postconviction relief will not be considered if filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence become final, subject to exceptions for newly-discovered evidence, retroactive application of a fundamental constitutional right, or failure of retained counsel to file a timely postconviction motion”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 So. 3d 1093, 2017 WL 2457192, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnet-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack