McCune v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCune v. State

779 So. 2d 296, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2418, 1999 WL 110825

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 5, 1999

DocketNos. 98-04504, 98-04514

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 779 So. 2d 296 (McCune 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

McCune v. State, 779 So. 2d 296, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2418, 1999 WL 110825 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Willie McCune appeals the denial of his motions for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850. McCune filed three virtually identical, successive motions alleging that he had not received all of the jail time credit to which he was entitled. These resulted in two appeals which have been consolidated here.

The trial court denied the first two motions on the grounds that they were time-barred under rule 3.850. This decision would have required reversal as McCune stated a facially sufficient claim for relief under rule 3.800(a) which could be brought at any time. However, in addressing McCune’s third motion, the trial court reviewed it on its merits and denied it with attachments which refuted McCune’s claim that he was entitled to more jail time credit than he had received. Therefore, we affirm.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ„ Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Willie McCune appeals the denial of his motions for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850. McCune filed three virtually identical, successive motions alleging that he had not received all of the jail time credit to which he was entitled. These resulted in two appeals which have been consolidated here.

The trial court denied the first two motions on the grounds that they were time-barred under rule 3.850. This decision would have required reversal as McCune stated a facially sufficient claim for relief under rule 3.800(a) which could be brought at any time. However, in addressing McCune’s third motion, the trial court reviewed it on its merits and denied it with attachments which refuted McCune’s claim that he was entitled to more jail time credit than he had received. Therefore, we affirm.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

779 So. 2d 296, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2418, 1999 WL 110825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccune-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack