Muram v. State

970 So. 2d 394, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17721, 2007 WL 3274429
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 7, 2007·No. No. 3D06-1863·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] right 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

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

970 So. 2d 394 (Muram v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)