Muram v. State
This text of 970 So. 2d 394 (Muram 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.
Opinion
We affirm the denial of Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief. The issue of whether or not the defendant is entitled to DNA testing has previously been addressed by this Court. See Muram, v. State, 950 So.2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). We also affirm the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s request for a free trial transcript. See Roesch v. State, 633 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993) (indigent inmates are not entitled to records free-of-charge); Yanke v. State, 588 So.2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (no [395]*395right to free transcript for preparation of postconviction motion).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
970 So. 2d 394, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17721, 2007 WL 3274429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muram-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.