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

Hall v. State

127 So. 3d 824, 2013 WL 6223407, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18903
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hall v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1048 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 27, 2013·No. No. 2D13-1921·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The postconviction court’s partial denial of Stephen A. Hall’s motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is affirmed without prejudice for Hall to file a motion under rule 3.801. If Hall chooses to filé a rule 3.801 motion, it must comply with the requirements out[825]*825lined in rules 3.801(b), (c), (e), and 3.850(n). Upon receipt of a rule 3.801 motion, the court must follow the procedure outlined in rule 3.850(f). See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.801(e) (effective July 1, 2013). Because it appears that Hall’s time to file a rule 3.801 motion will have expired during the pen-dency of this appeal, if he files such a motion within thirty days of the date this opinion becomes final, it shall not be considered untimely.

Affirmed without prejudice.

SILBERMAN, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

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

Hall v. State, 127 So. 3d 824, 2013 WL 6223407, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18903 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

127 So. 3d 824 (Hall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.