Oxendine v. State
This text of 824 So. 2d 1022 (Oxendine 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
Chutney Gerard OXENDINE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Chutney Gerard Oxendine, Raiford, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PLEUS, J.
We affirm the denial of the defendant's September 10, 2001, "3.850 Motion for Post-Conviction Relief," but reverse and remand for consideration of the three claims raised in his December 21, 2001, "Amendment to Previously Filed Pro Se *1023 Motion for Motion for Post Conviction Relief, Rule 3.850 Fla. R.Crim. P." See Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla.1999) (defendant entitled to have court rule on amended motion filed before trial court ruled on the original motion and within rule's 2 year time limit).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED.
PALMER and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
824 So. 2d 1022, 2002 WL 1990887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxendine-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.