Munn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Munn v. State

634 So. 2d 312, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3260, 1994 WL 112207

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 6, 1994·No. No. 94-0330·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, the state has agreed that if the motion was timely filed, the order denying the motion should be reversed. We conclude that the 3.850 motion was timely filed. See Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Clements, 148 Fla. 175, 3 So.2d 865 (Fla.1941); Cook v. Walgreen Co., 399 So.2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record conclusively showing that appellant is not entitled to relief.

GUNTHER, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, the state has agreed that if the motion was timely filed, the order denying the motion should be reversed. We conclude that the 3.850 motion was timely filed. See Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Clements, 148 Fla. 175, 3 So.2d 865 (Fla.1941); Cook v. Walgreen Co., 399 So.2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record conclusively showing that appellant is not entitled to relief.

GUNTHER, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Munn v. State, 634 So. 2d 312, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3260, 1994 WL 112207 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

634 So. 2d 312 (Munn v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related