Madrigal v. State

969 So. 2d 1204, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19696, 2007 WL 4322328
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 12, 2007
DocketNo. 2D07-2667
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 969 So. 2d 1204 (Madrigal 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
Madrigal v. State, 969 So. 2d 1204, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19696, 2007 WL 4322328 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Victor Madrigal appeals an order summarily denying his motion to correct or modify sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c). We treat the motion as a timely filed petition for writ of certiorari. See Seward v. State, 912 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Based on our precedent, we grant the petition, quash the order, and remand to the postconviction court to consider the merits of Mr. Madrigal’s motion. See McCormick v. State, 961 So.2d 1099, 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Cunniff v. State, 950 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

SALCINES, WALLACE, and LaROSE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Real Investments, LLC v. Oaks Group, Inc.
969 So. 2d 1204 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
969 So. 2d 1204, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19696, 2007 WL 4322328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madrigal-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.