Lenton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lenton v. State

708 So. 2d 684, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4368, 1998 WL 176723

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3252

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 684 (Lenton 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

Lenton v. State, 708 So. 2d 684, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4368, 1998 WL 176723 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

McDONALD, PARKER L., Senior Judge.

We affirm the order denying appellant’s motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The first and third claims raised in appellant’s motion are procedurally barred because those issues could have been raised on appeal. The second claim regarding counsel’s failure to contact a witness who would have testified that she shot the victim is facially insufficient. See Kilgore v. State, 631 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). However, since the time period for filing a rule 3.850 has not expired, our affirmance as to the second claim only is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file below a revised motion that fully com[685]*685plies with Rule 3.850. Groves v. State, 668 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA1996).

AFFIRM.

MICKLE, J., concurs. DAVIS, J., concurs in result only.

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

McDONALD, PARKER L., Senior Judge.

We affirm the order denying appellant’s motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The first and third claims raised in appellant’s motion are procedurally barred because those issues could have been raised on appeal. The second claim regarding counsel’s failure to contact a witness who would have testified that she shot the victim is facially insufficient. See Kilgore v. State, 631 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). However, since the time period for filing a rule 3.850 has not expired, our affirmance as to the second claim only is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file below a revised motion that fully com[685]*685plies with Rule 3.850. Groves v. State, 668 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA1996).

AFFIRM.

MICKLE, J., concurs. DAVIS, J., concurs in result only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 684, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4368, 1998 WL 176723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenton-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack