Muram v. State

970 So. 2d 394, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17721, 2007 WL 3274429
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 7, 2007
DocketNo. 3D06-1863
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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.

Bluebook
Muram v. State, 970 So. 2d 394, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17721, 2007 WL 3274429 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

William Sims v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Cuesta v. State
970 So. 2d 394 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.