Porkolab v. State
This text of 187 So. 3d 945 (Porkolab 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
Affirmed without prejudice to appellant filing with the trial court a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011) (recognizing that rule 3.800(a) places the burden on the movant to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002) (noting that a claim raised in a motion under 3.800(a) must be capable of being resolved as a matter of law, without an evidentiary determination, and on the face of the existing court record).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
187 So. 3d 945, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4495, 2016 WL 1133702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porkolab-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.