Cox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cox v. State

869 So. 2d 27, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2371, 2004 WL 359960

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 2004

DocketNo. 2D03-2978

StatusPublished

This text of 869 So. 2d 27 (Cox 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

Cox v. State, 869 So. 2d 27, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2371, 2004 WL 359960 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Judge.

We affirm the order of the trial court summarily denying Collie Cox’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Cox might have to file, within thirty days from the date of the mandate in this case, a rule 3.850 motion that raises a facially sufficient claim in regard to ground one of the present motion. Any such motion shall not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

FULMER and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.

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

WALLACE, Judge.

We affirm the order of the trial court summarily denying Collie Cox’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Cox might have to file, within thirty days from the date of the mandate in this case, a rule 3.850 motion that raises a facially sufficient claim in regard to ground one of the present motion. Any such motion shall not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

FULMER and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 So. 2d 27, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2371, 2004 WL 359960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.