Porkolab v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Porkolab v. State

187 So. 3d 945, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4495, 2016 WL 1133702

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 23, 2016·No. No. 3D15-429·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

PER CURIAM.

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).

Porkolab v. State, 187 So. 3d 945, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4495, 2016 WL 1133702 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

187 So. 3d 945 (Porkolab v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related