McFord v. State

948 So. 2d 60, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 223, 2007 WL 57858
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 10, 2007
DocketNo. 3D06-1181
StatusPublished

This text of 948 So. 2d 60 (McFord 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
McFord v. State, 948 So. 2d 60, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 223, 2007 WL 57858 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Emile McFord appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. McFord’s double-jeopardy claim is legally insufficient and conclusively refuted by the record before us. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850; Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D), Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156 (Fla.2006). In addition, McFord has already challenged his plea agreement violation and sentence on appeal and failed to raise the alleged double-jeopardy issue. See McFord v. State, 877 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying McFord’s motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Walls v. State
926 So. 2d 1156 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
McFord v. State
877 So. 2d 874 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
948 So. 2d 60, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 223, 2007 WL 57858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcford-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.