Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Glaum v. State

Glaum v. State

132 So. 3d 887, 2014 WL 486145, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 7, 2014
DocketNo. 2D13-2675
StatusPublished

This text of 132 So. 3d 887 (Glaum 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
Glaum v. State, 132 So. 3d 887, 2014 WL 486145, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Bruce M. Glaum’s motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he raised two issues. We note that the post-conviction court did not address Glaum’s claim that he is entitled to credit for weekends spent in county jail. However, because this claim was facially insufficient, we affirm. See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 n. 2 (Fla.2011). Our affirmance is without prejudice for Glaum to file a [888]*888facially sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801.

Affirmed without prejudice.

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Johnson v. State
60 So. 3d 1045 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 So. 3d 887, 2014 WL 486145, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glaum-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.