Hull v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hull v. State

676 So. 2d 470, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6041, 1996 WL 303069

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 1996

DocketNo. 96-475

StatusPublished

This text of 676 So. 2d 470 (Hull 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

Hull v. State, 676 So. 2d 470, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6041, 1996 WL 303069 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles R. Hull appeals fi’om the summary denial of his 3.850 post conviction motion. [471]*471Hull’s motion and attached memorandum of law raise nine issues. We need to address only one.

Although Hull asserted in his motion that he had requested his counsel to file a notice of appeal, Hull failed to allege that he made this request in a timely fashion. This omission was cured, however, by the accompanying sworn memorandum wherein Hull did allege a timely request. Consequently, on this claim, Hull is entitled to further action on remand.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand on this point only, and affirm as to all remaining issues.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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