Forney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forney v. State

238 So. 3d 839

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 28, 2018·No. No. 4D17–3854·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant's successive rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We write only to address appellant's claim that the orders entered after he filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge were void. This claim is meritless because appellant failed to serve the motion on the judge. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c), (j) ; Braddy v. State , 111 So.3d 810, 833 (Fla. 2012) ; Hedrick v. State , 6 So.3d 688, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Affirmed .

Warner, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant's successive rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We write only to address appellant's claim that the orders entered after he filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge were void. This claim is meritless because appellant failed to serve the motion on the judge. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c), (j) ; Braddy v. State , 111 So.3d 810, 833 (Fla. 2012) ; Hedrick v. State , 6 So.3d 688, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Affirmed .

Warner, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

Forney v. State, 238 So. 3d 839 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

238 So. 3d 839 (Forney v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related