Goff v. State

673 So. 2d 990, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5523, 1996 WL 280028
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 29, 1996
DocketNo. 96-0717
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
673 So. 2d 990, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5523, 1996 WL 280028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goff-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.