McCluster v. State
872 So. 2d 447, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6715, 2004 WL 1074504
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 14, 2004·No. No. 2D03-5233·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
We affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right appellant might have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), or a timely facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising the claim that the written sentences in counts three and four are illegal because they do not comport with the oral pronouncement.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McCluster v. State, 872 So. 2d 447, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6715, 2004 WL 1074504 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).
872 So. 2d 447 (McCluster v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lyell v. State
872 So. 2d 447 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)