Forney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forney v. State

238 So. 3d 839

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2018

DocketNo. 4D17–3854

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 So. 3d 839 (Forney 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 So. 3d 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forney-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack