Grimes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grimes v. State

642 So. 2d 145, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8858, 1994 WL 498416

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 14, 1994

DocketNo. 94-2143

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 642 So. 2d 145 (Grimes 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

Grimes v. State, 642 So. 2d 145, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8858, 1994 WL 498416 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion for correction of sentence to include additional credit for time served. There was no evidentiary hearing, and the trial court failed to attach to its order the portions of the record which it relied on for denial. Here, however, the state filed a response to the motion, and attached a copy of appellant’s signed plea agreement which conclusively shows that his motion is without merit. The court stated in its order denying the motion that it had considered the state’s response. Under these circumstances we conclude that the trial court’s failure to attach to its order the portions of the record relied on for denial of the motion is not reversible error.

We agree with the first district, which came to the same conclusion under similar circumstances, in Bland v. State, 563 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion for correction of sentence to include additional credit for time served. There was no evidentiary hearing, and the trial court failed to attach to its order the portions of the record which it relied on for denial. Here, however, the state filed a response to the motion, and attached a copy of appellant’s signed plea agreement which conclusively shows that his motion is without merit. The court stated in its order denying the motion that it had considered the state’s response. Under these circumstances we conclude that the trial court’s failure to attach to its order the portions of the record relied on for denial of the motion is not reversible error.

We agree with the first district, which came to the same conclusion under similar circumstances, in Bland v. State, 563 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 So. 2d 145, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8858, 1994 WL 498416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grimes-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack