Lenton v. State

708 So. 2d 684, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4368, 1998 WL 176723
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 17, 1998·No. No. 97-3252·Published

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

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

708 So. 2d 684 (Lenton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Groves v. State
668 So. 2d 1089 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Kilgore v. State
631 So. 2d 334 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)