COTTO-MARCANO v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

COTTO-MARCANO v. State

27 So. 3d 774, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1452, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 364

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 2010

Docket5D10-246

StatusPublished

This text of 27 So. 3d 774 (COTTO-MARCANO 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

COTTO-MARCANO v. State, 27 So. 3d 774, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1452, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 364 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Orlando Cotto-Marcano seeks a belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141. However, nowhere in the instant petition does Cotto-Marcano allege that he timely requested that his trial counsel appeal and trial counsel failed to do so as required by rule 9.141(c)(3)(F).

Additionally, the petition was not sworn to as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(3)(F). An affirmation that the statements made in the petition are “true and correct to the best of my knowledge” is not an adequate oath. See Moore v. State, 910 So.2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Therefore, we deny the petition because it is facially insufficient. See Abbot v. State, 929 So.2d 723, 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Cosby v. State, 911 So.2d 275, 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Cotto-Marcano shall have thirty (30) days in which to file a legally sufficient amended petition.

PETITION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

MONACO, C.J., GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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