Love v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Love v. State

637 So. 2d 388, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5867, 1994 WL 256881

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Love v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 623 So. 2d 1221 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 14, 1994·No. No. 93-2923·Published

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

James Roy Love appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The state has apparently conceded that the motion was facially sufficient and suggests remand to the trial court for attachment of portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that Love is not entitled to relief, or for an evidentiary hearing on his motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

SMITH and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

James Roy Love appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The state has apparently conceded that the motion was facially sufficient and suggests remand to the trial court for attachment of portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that Love is not entitled to relief, or for an evidentiary hearing on his motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

SMITH and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Love v. State, 637 So. 2d 388, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5867, 1994 WL 256881 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

637 So. 2d 388 (Love v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.