Morrison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morrison v. State

453 So. 2d 467, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14201

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 1984

DocketNo. AV-304

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 453 So. 2d 467 (Morrison 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

Morrison v. State, 453 So. 2d 467, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14201 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing filed by Michael Timothy Morrison. Our initial opinion is withdrawn.

Morrison appeals pro se the trial court’s summary denial of his Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court de[468]*468nied this motion on the basis that the same motion had been previously filed and denied. Our examination of the record shows that this previously filed motion was a motion for correction, reduction, and modification of sentence under Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and did not assert the same grounds as were asserted in the motion subsequently filed under Rule 3.850. Accordingly, we must remand to the trial court.

BOOTH, SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ, concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing filed by Michael Timothy Morrison. Our initial opinion is withdrawn.

Morrison appeals pro se the trial court’s summary denial of his Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court de[468]*468nied this motion on the basis that the same motion had been previously filed and denied. Our examination of the record shows that this previously filed motion was a motion for correction, reduction, and modification of sentence under Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and did not assert the same grounds as were asserted in the motion subsequently filed under Rule 3.850. Accordingly, we must remand to the trial court.

BOOTH, SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 So. 2d 467, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack