Jones v. State
This text of 894 So. 2d 1070 (Jones 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.
Opinion
Curtis JONES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Curtis J. Jones, Bushnell, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The order denying as successive appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion is affirmed. Although we find the motion was not successive and barred by collateral estoppel, the motion failed to state a legally sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a).
Accordingly, affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to again seek relief in the trial court through a rule 3.800(a) motion that specifically identifies non-hearsay, record evidence supporting the claim of a violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993).
See Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002); Brown v. State, 806 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Nelson v. State, 855 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Speas v. State, 887 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
FARMER, C.J., POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
894 So. 2d 1070, 2005 WL 357433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.