Fisher v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fisher v. State

6 So. 3d 118, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3185, 2009 WL 996404

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 2009

Docket4D08-3159, 4D09-243

StatusPublished

This text of 6 So. 3d 118 (Fisher 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

Fisher v. State, 6 So. 3d 118, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3185, 2009 WL 996404 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have consolidated Dale Fisher’s belated appeals of the orders that denied his motions for rule 3.800(a) and 3.850 relief. Both motions present the same claim that the trial court’s written sentence fails to comport with the oral pronouncement associated with other active sentences. Both motions were summarily denied without attachments, comment, or a request for the state to respond. See Fleming v. State, 980 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Terry v. State, 970 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We reverse and remand for further review of the claim, noting that the relief offered under a rule 3.850 motion does not limit Fisher to the record as detailed in Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600 (Fla.2007).

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have consolidated Dale Fisher’s belated appeals of the orders that denied his motions for rule 3.800(a) and 3.850 relief. Both motions present the same claim that the trial court’s written sentence fails to comport with the oral pronouncement associated with other active sentences. Both motions were summarily denied without attachments, comment, or a request for the state to respond. See Fleming v. State, 980 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Terry v. State, 970 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We reverse and remand for further review of the claim, noting that the relief offered under a rule 3.850 motion does not limit Fisher to the record as detailed in Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600 (Fla.2007).

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 So. 3d 118, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3185, 2009 WL 996404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack