Edmondson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Edmondson v. State

854 So. 2d 751, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12810, 2003 WL 22012777

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 27, 2003

DocketNo. 2D03-179

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 854 So. 2d 751 (Edmondson 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

Edmondson v. State, 854 So. 2d 751, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12810, 2003 WL 22012777 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

Ronnie Edward Edmondson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which the trial court treated as a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order of denial because the record indicates that Edmondson is not entitled to the jail credit he requested. However, Edmondson may have a meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Blake v. State, 807 So.2d 772, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to any right Edmondson may have to file a timely, facially sufficient motion for postconviction relief raising such a claim. See id.; Hill v. State, 821 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

STRINGER, Judge.

Ronnie Edward Edmondson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which the trial court treated as a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order of denial because the record indicates that Edmondson is not entitled to the jail credit he requested. However, Edmondson may have a meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Blake v. State, 807 So.2d 772, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to any right Edmondson may have to file a timely, facially sufficient motion for postconviction relief raising such a claim. See id.; Hill v. State, 821 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

854 So. 2d 751, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12810, 2003 WL 22012777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmondson-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack