Herrera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Herrera v. State

126 So. 3d 445, 2013 WL 5989174, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18048

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 2013

DocketNo. 4D13-864

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 So. 3d 445 (Herrera 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

Herrera v. State, 126 So. 3d 445, 2013 WL 5989174, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18048 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion without prejudice for her to file a facially sufficient motion if she can do so in good faith. Within sixty (60) days of the mandate for this case, appellant may file an amended motion in the trial court which complies with the pleading requirements set forth in Cano v. State, 112 So.3d 646, 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion without prejudice for her to file a facially sufficient motion if she can do so in good faith. Within sixty (60) days of the mandate for this case, appellant may file an amended motion in the trial court which complies with the pleading requirements set forth in Cano v. State, 112 So.3d 646, 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 So. 3d 445, 2013 WL 5989174, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack