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

Cox v. State

869 So. 2d 27, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2371, 2004 WL 359960
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cox v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 805 So. 2d 1042 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 27, 2004·No. No. 2D03-2978·Published

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

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

869 So. 2d 27 (Cox v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.