Freeman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Freeman v. State

174 So. 3d 1104, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13899, 2015 WL 5456718

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Freeman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11703 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 18, 2015·No. No. 5D14-3055·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Limited, boilerplate motions for judgment of acquittal, which are of a technical and pro-forma nature, are inadequate to preserve a sufficiency of evidence claim for appellate review. Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 895 (FIa.2000). Relief, if any, must come in a timely and sufficiently pled motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Limited, boilerplate motions for judgment of acquittal, which are of a technical and pro-forma nature, are inadequate to preserve a sufficiency of evidence claim for appellate review. Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 895 (FIa.2000). Relief, if any, must come in a timely and sufficiently pled motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Freeman v. State, 174 So. 3d 1104, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13899, 2015 WL 5456718 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

174 So. 3d 1104 (Freeman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related