Nomnombre v. State
This text of 963 So. 2d 927 (Nomnombre 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
Chanel Nomnombre appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. The trial court denied Nomnombre’s motion as untimely and as lacking a sufficient oath. The trial court did not address the [928]*928merits or sufficiency of the claim. We find that Nomnombre’s motion was not untimely 1 and it included the sufficient alternative oath permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987 associated with rule 3.850 motions. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further review of the motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
963 So. 2d 927, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13395, 2007 WL 2428583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nomnombre-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.