LaFontaine v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

LaFontaine v. State

585 So. 2d 507, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9569, 1991 WL 182090

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 1991

DocketNo. 91-1393

StatusPublished

This text of 585 So. 2d 507 (LaFontaine 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

LaFontaine v. State, 585 So. 2d 507, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9569, 1991 WL 182090 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals two separate orders of the trial court concerning two motions for post-conviction relief.

[508]*508We deny appellant’s petition for belated appeal of the first order because appellant has failed to show any entitlement to a belated appeal. However, review of the first order reveals no error was committed. We would suggest for the future that the clerk of the court not only promptly serve upon the prisoner a copy of any order denying a motion for post-conviction relief or denying a motion for rehearing, but also note thereon, as is required by rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the date of service by an appropriate certificate of service.

We would further affirm the trial court’s order on the second motion for post-conviction relief because appellant received the relief to which he was entitled.

REQUEST FOR BELATED APPEAL OF FIRST ORDER DENIED; APPEAL OF SECOND ORDER AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals two separate orders of the trial court concerning two motions for post-conviction relief.

[508]*508We deny appellant’s petition for belated appeal of the first order because appellant has failed to show any entitlement to a belated appeal. However, review of the first order reveals no error was committed. We would suggest for the future that the clerk of the court not only promptly serve upon the prisoner a copy of any order denying a motion for post-conviction relief or denying a motion for rehearing, but also note thereon, as is required by rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the date of service by an appropriate certificate of service.

We would further affirm the trial court’s order on the second motion for post-conviction relief because appellant received the relief to which he was entitled.

REQUEST FOR BELATED APPEAL OF FIRST ORDER DENIED; APPEAL OF SECOND ORDER AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 So. 2d 507, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9569, 1991 WL 182090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafontaine-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.