Herrera v. State
126 So. 3d 445, 2013 WL 5989174, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18048
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 13, 2013·No. No. 4D13-864·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Herrera v. State, 126 So. 3d 445, 2013 WL 5989174, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18048 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).
126 So. 3d 445 (Herrera v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lorena Vargas Herrera v. State
141 So. 3d 713 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Herrera v. State
141 So. 3d 713 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)