Colonel v. State
724 So. 2d 1261, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 615, 1999 WL 29202
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 27, 1999·No. No. 98-1721·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion as untimely and successive. However, we reverse that part of the order which imposes sanctions barring-appellant from filing any further pleadings in this case and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinions in Boston v. State, 722 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) and Spencer v. State, 717 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Colonel v. State, 724 So. 2d 1261, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 615, 1999 WL 29202 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).
724 So. 2d 1261 (Colonel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hay v. Moore
728 So. 2d 806 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)