Hunter v. State

941 So. 2d 1292, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19624, 2006 WL 3371790
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hunter v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 914 So. 2d 985
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 22, 2006·No. No. 4D06-3837·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, without prejudice to appellant filing a properly sworn motion or petition in the lower court no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this opinion. See Hundley v. State, 929 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The motion or petition should also comply with the content requirements of rule 3.850(c) and include an explanation as to why it is timely filed pursuant to rule 3.850(b). See also Love v. State, 814 So.2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (noting petitions for writ of error coram nobis are constrained by the same two-year time limit as motions for postconviction relief, through rule 3.850(b)).

STEVENSON, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Hunter v. State, 941 So. 2d 1292, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19624, 2006 WL 3371790 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

941 So. 2d 1292 (Hunter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Love v. State
814 So. 2d 475 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Hundley v. State
929 So. 2d 1087 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)