Moriarty v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moriarty v. State

779 So. 2d 657, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3412, 2001 WL 256064

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-3714

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 779 So. 2d 657 (Moriarty 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

Moriarty v. State, 779 So. 2d 657, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3412, 2001 WL 256064 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the court’s own motion, Appellant, Ralph Moriarty, was required to show cause why his untimely appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This court appointed the Honorable Robert K. Mathis as commissioner of this court to conduct a hearing to determine if a late appeal should be authorized. Having considered the report of the commissioner, we conclude that Moriarty’s untimeliness was due to excusable neglect on the part of his attorney and the fault of the United States Postal Service. Accordingly, we authorize Moriarty’s belated appeal.

We have reviewed the circuit court’s order denying Moriarty’ relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order denying 3.850 relief.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, PALMER and ORFINGER, R. B., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

On the court’s own motion, Appellant, Ralph Moriarty, was required to show cause why his untimely appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This court appointed the Honorable Robert K. Mathis as commissioner of this court to conduct a hearing to determine if a late appeal should be authorized. Having considered the report of the commissioner, we conclude that Moriarty’s untimeliness was due to excusable neglect on the part of his attorney and the fault of the United States Postal Service. Accordingly, we authorize Moriarty’s belated appeal.

We have reviewed the circuit court’s order denying Moriarty’ relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order denying 3.850 relief.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, PALMER and ORFINGER, R. B., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

779 So. 2d 657, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3412, 2001 WL 256064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moriarty-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack