Ghanem v. State
This text of 947 So. 2d 1252 (Ghanem 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.
Opinion
Karim GHANEM, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Fred Haddad of Fred Haddad, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
*1253 No appearance required for appellee.
Prior report: 910 So.2d 434.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Karim Ghanem appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, wherein he claimed the trial court imposed an illegal departure sentence. The motion did not contain a sufficient oath, and, thus, the lower court properly denied relief as if the motion had been filed under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under this rule, relief is not warranted because the upward departure sentence could have been imposed pursuant to section 921.0016(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2003). See Brooks v. State, 930 So.2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (en banc). We affirm, without prejudice to Ghanem filing a proper rule 3.850 motion within the time remaining under rule 3.850. See generally Greenwood v. State, 802 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
SHAHOOD, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
947 So. 2d 1252, 2007 WL 247893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ghanem-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.