Doyle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Doyle v. State

77 So. 3d 817, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19, 2012 WL 10845

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 4, 2012

DocketNo. 3D11-2861

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 3d 817 (Doyle 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

Doyle v. State, 77 So. 3d 817, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19, 2012 WL 10845 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 was denied by the trial court. Because the motion challenges the defendant’s conviction rather than his sentence, we treat his motion as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g., Rivas v. State, 43 So.3d 154, 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Hilbert v. State, 661 So.2d 895, 895-96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The motion was untimely on its face and thus properly denied.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 was denied by the trial court. Because the motion challenges the defendant’s conviction rather than his sentence, we treat his motion as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g., Rivas v. State, 43 So.3d 154, 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Hilbert v. State, 661 So.2d 895, 895-96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The motion was untimely on its face and thus properly denied.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 3d 817, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19, 2012 WL 10845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack