Gray v. State

868 So. 2d 633, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3066, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 629
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gray v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 854 So. 2d 287
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 12, 2004·No. No. 2D03-4316·Published

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

Albert Gray, Sr. appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Gray’s motion is facially insufficient, therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. See Saffold v. State, 850 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Fla. R.Crim P. 3.850(b)(4). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Gray may have to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty [634]*634days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Burgess v. State, 862 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

Gray v. State, 868 So. 2d 633, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3066, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 629 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

868 So. 2d 633 (Gray v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Saffold v. State
850 So. 2d 574 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Burgess v. State
862 So. 2d 943 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)