Drake v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Drake v. State

772 So. 2d 38, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12300, 2000 WL 1409678

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 27, 2000

DocketNo. 2D00-218

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 772 So. 2d 38 (Drake 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

Drake v. State, 772 So. 2d 38, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12300, 2000 WL 1409678 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ulysses Drake, Jr., appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion the trial court’s denial of relief to Drake on all the issues raised in his original motion for postconviction relief. In addition, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief on the sole issue raised in Drake’s amended motion for postconviction relief because that amended motion was not under oath as required by rule 3.850(c).

However, the trial court should have offered Drake the opportunity to refile his motion under oath. See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1993). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to Drake’s right to file his amended motion under oath with the trial court within thirty days from the date of issuance of the mandate in this appeal.

PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ulysses Drake, Jr., appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion the trial court’s denial of relief to Drake on all the issues raised in his original motion for postconviction relief. In addition, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief on the sole issue raised in Drake’s amended motion for postconviction relief because that amended motion was not under oath as required by rule 3.850(c).

However, the trial court should have offered Drake the opportunity to refile his motion under oath. See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1993). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to Drake’s right to file his amended motion under oath with the trial court within thirty days from the date of issuance of the mandate in this appeal.

PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

772 So. 2d 38, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12300, 2000 WL 1409678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drake-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack