Dishman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dishman v. State

800 So. 2d 655, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15548, 2001 WL 1346423

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-4257

StatusPublished

This text of 800 So. 2d 655 (Dishman 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

Dishman v. State, 800 So. 2d 655, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15548, 2001 WL 1346423 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark Dishman, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), filed a motion to correct illegal sentence during the time his conviction and sentence were on direct appeal to this court. That direct appeal remains pending in this court. The trial court entered an order which summarily denied the motion, and Dishman appealed the order.

Dishman has now filed a motion to hold this appeal in abeyance until his direct appeal is resolved. Because there are no time constraints on Dishman filing a new motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a), we affirm this case without prejudice to Dishman’s right to refile his motion following the resolution of his direct appeal.

PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mark Dishman, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), filed a motion to correct illegal sentence during the time his conviction and sentence were on direct appeal to this court. That direct appeal remains pending in this court. The trial court entered an order which summarily denied the motion, and Dishman appealed the order.

Dishman has now filed a motion to hold this appeal in abeyance until his direct appeal is resolved. Because there are no time constraints on Dishman filing a new motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a), we affirm this case without prejudice to Dishman’s right to refile his motion following the resolution of his direct appeal.

PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

800 So. 2d 655, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15548, 2001 WL 1346423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dishman-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.