Cowick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cowick v. State

419 So. 2d 779, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21236

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 1982

DocketNo. AK-307

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 419 So. 2d 779 (Cowick 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

Cowick v. State, 419 So. 2d 779, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21236 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant Harold Cowick’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 does not meet the minimal requirements of the rule for review. For example, the motion does not set forth: (1) whether an appeal from the judgment or sentence was filed and if so, the disposition thereof, or (2) whether previous post-conviction relief motion^) were filed and if so, how many. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(b), (c). Consequently, the motion is deficient. We affirm the lower court’s denial of the motion, but we do so without prejudice to appellant’s refiling of the motion in proper form. Scott v. State, 364 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); accord, Brooks v. State, 386 So.2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellant Harold Cowick’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 does not meet the minimal requirements of the rule for review. For example, the motion does not set forth: (1) whether an appeal from the judgment or sentence was filed and if so, the disposition thereof, or (2) whether previous post-conviction relief motion^) were filed and if so, how many. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(b), (c). Consequently, the motion is deficient. We affirm the lower court’s denial of the motion, but we do so without prejudice to appellant’s refiling of the motion in proper form. Scott v. State, 364 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); accord, Brooks v. State, 386 So.2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 So. 2d 779, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowick-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack