Isla v. State

185 So. 3d 695, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1972, 2016 WL 542833
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 12, 2016·No. No. 5D15-1191·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Golden v. State, 84 So.3d 396, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Assuming arguendo that the trial court properly allowed Golden’s counsel- to adopt'the pro se motion, the effective- date of an adopted pro se motion is the date it is adopted- and not the initial date the unauthorized pleading was filed.”).

LAWSON, C.J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

Isla v. State, 185 So. 3d 695, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1972, 2016 WL 542833 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

185 So. 3d 695 (Isla v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cornelius v. State
223 So. 3d 398 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Clifton Cornelius v. State
223 So. 3d 398 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)