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

Haughbrook v. State

658 So. 2d 639, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7966, 1995 WL 437253
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 26, 1995
DocketNo. 95-00930
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 658 So. 2d 639 (Haughbrook 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
Haughbrook v. State, 658 So. 2d 639, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7966, 1995 WL 437253 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Herman Haughbrook appeals the denial of his motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court properly rejected his motion because it was not properly sworn. The denial of his claim is, however, without prejudice, and he may refile a properly sworn motion in the trial court. Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 [640]*640(Fla.1993). Haughbrook may refile his motion within 30 days from the date of this opinion and such a prompt refiling will not be time barred. Miller v. State, 617 So.2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

THREADGILL, C.J., and QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hickey v. State
763 So. 2d 1213 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Pavey v. State
720 So. 2d 563 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Daniels v. State
685 So. 2d 1344 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
658 So. 2d 639, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7966, 1995 WL 437253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haughbrook-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.