Goff v. State

673 So. 2d 990, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5523, 1996 WL 280028
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 29, 1996·No. No. 96-0717·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a motion in the trial court with the verification required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.987 within thirty days. See Weisman v. State, 651 So.2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

The motion in this case does not appear to be facially defective, but for the absence of verification, in its allegations with respect to appellant’s plea agreement, counsel’s representations to the court with respect to same and counsel’s calculations as to sentence.

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Goff v. State, 673 So. 2d 990, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5523, 1996 WL 280028 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

673 So. 2d 990 (Goff v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Troya v. State
817 So. 2d 932 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Thomas v. State
686 So. 2d 699 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)