Centano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Centano v. State

944 So. 2d 1225, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21273, 2006 WL 3734378

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Centano v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13040 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 20, 2006·No. No. 3D06-2601·Published

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Teofilo B. Centano (“defendant”) appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), as repetitious. As the order provided by the defendant contains no attachments, we are unable to provide meaningful review. We, therefore, reverse and remand for the issuance of a new order with the record attachments that conclusively refute the defendant’s claims, if the motion is denied. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D)(requiring reversal by this court unless the record shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief).

Reversed and remanded.

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

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Teofilo B. Centano (“defendant”) appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), as repetitious. As the order provided by the defendant contains no attachments, we are unable to provide meaningful review. We, therefore, reverse and remand for the issuance of a new order with the record attachments that conclusively refute the defendant’s claims, if the motion is denied. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D)(requiring reversal by this court unless the record shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief).

Reversed and remanded.

Centano v. State, 944 So. 2d 1225, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21273, 2006 WL 3734378 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

944 So. 2d 1225 (Centano v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.