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

Clay v. State

889 So. 2d 985, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19642, 2004 WL 2952789
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 22, 2004
DocketNo. 4D04-3784
StatusPublished

This text of 889 So. 2d 985 (Clay 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
Clay v. State, 889 So. 2d 985, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19642, 2004 WL 2952789 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, without prejudice to appellant filing in the trial court a facially sufficient Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion that identifies specific non-hearsay, record evidence that supports his claim. Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002); Wachter v. State, 868 So.2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Appellant may raise the alleged violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), in a rule 3.850 motion [986]*986if he can establish a valid exception to the two-year time limitation. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).

FARMER, C.J., STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wachter v. State
868 So. 2d 629 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Hale v. State
630 So. 2d 521 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Burgess v. State
831 So. 2d 137 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
889 So. 2d 985, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19642, 2004 WL 2952789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.