Catches v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Catches v. State

706 So. 2d 941, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2231, 1998 WL 85505

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 3, 1998·No. No. 97-4880·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The postconviction motion filed, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, did not contain the proper oath. See Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla.1986); Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985) (use of the qualifying words “to the best of [my] knowledge” renders oath improper under 3.850). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal based on facial insufficiency. Our affir-mance is without prejudice to appellant filing with the trial court a timely postconvietion motion which complies with the requirements set forth in rule 3.850.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The postconviction motion filed, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, did not contain the proper oath. See Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla.1986); Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985) (use of the qualifying words “to the best of [my] knowledge” renders oath improper under 3.850). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal based on facial insufficiency. Our affir-mance is without prejudice to appellant filing with the trial court a timely postconvietion motion which complies with the requirements set forth in rule 3.850.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Catches v. State, 706 So. 2d 941, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2231, 1998 WL 85505 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

706 So. 2d 941 (Catches v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related