Cunningham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cunningham v. State

382 So. 2d 1379, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16158

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1980

DocketNo. 80-430

StatusPublished

This text of 382 So. 2d 1379 (Cunningham 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

Cunningham v. State, 382 So. 2d 1379, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16158 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter has been considered on the pro se appeal of the defendant from the denial of his 3.850 motion without a hearing. The appeal is considered pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g). The judgment sought to be collaterally attacked in the trial court recites that the defendant was found guilty and sentenced for delivery of a controlled substance and for possession of the same controlled substance. See 15 Fla.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, Section 888; Drayton v. State, 372 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We conclude that the record transmitted to this court does not conclusively show that the appellant is entitled to no relief and the order is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This matter has been considered on the pro se appeal of the defendant from the denial of his 3.850 motion without a hearing. The appeal is considered pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g). The judgment sought to be collaterally attacked in the trial court recites that the defendant was found guilty and sentenced for delivery of a controlled substance and for possession of the same controlled substance. See 15 Fla.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, Section 888; Drayton v. State, 372 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We conclude that the record transmitted to this court does not conclusively show that the appellant is entitled to no relief and the order is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 So. 2d 1379, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack