Mills v. State
911 So. 2d 850, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14679, 2005 WL 2254115
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 19, 2005·No. No. 1D05-1585·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
We affirm the order denying the motion, but do so without prejudice to appellant’s refiling his jail credit claim in a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion. See Burch[851]*851field v. State, 907 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mills v. State, 911 So. 2d 850, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14679, 2005 WL 2254115 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).
911 So. 2d 850 (Mills v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Murphy v. State
930 So. 2d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)