Herndon v. State
939 So. 2d 172, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16398, 2006 WL 2818510
Opinion
We affirm without prejudice to appellant raising issue III in a timely rule 3.850 motion. See Patterson v. State, 904 So.2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Keifner v. State, 896 So.2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Zuluaga v. State, 793 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). As in Patterson, “[w]e do not have a sufficient record to determine whether, if appellant does file a rule 3.850 motion, it [173]*173would be successive under rule 3.850(f), and this opinion should not be construed as deciding that issue.” Id. at 593; Keifner, 896 So.2d at 956.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Herndon v. State, 939 So. 2d 172, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16398, 2006 WL 2818510 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
939 So. 2d 172 (Herndon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Zuluaga v. State
793 So. 2d 60 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Patterson v. State
904 So. 2d 593 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Keifner v. State
896 So. 2d 955 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)