Purse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Purse v. State

185 So. 3d 627, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1526, 2016 WL 438128

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 2016

DocketNo. 5D15-2052

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 185 So. 3d 627 (Purse 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.

Bluebook

Purse v. State, 185 So. 3d 627, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1526, 2016 WL 438128 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jermaine Purse appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.850.' We find no error in the denial of grounds one through six of his motion. Accordingly, wé affirm on these issues without further discussion.

As to grounds' seven,' eight, and nine of the 3.850 motion, Purse contends that the trial court erred in failing to address those grounds. The State concedes that the trial court’s orders dealt only with grounds one through six. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall address the issues contained in grounds seven, eight, and nine. See Gonzalez v. State, 829 So.2d 323, 324 (Fla.2d DCA 2002) (“We affirm, without comment, the issues addressed in the trial court’s order, but we reverse and remand for consideration of an issue that the trial court failed to address.”).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED , with directions.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWÁYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jermaine Purse appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.850.' We find no error in the denial of grounds one through six of his motion. Accordingly, wé affirm on these issues without further discussion.

As to grounds' seven,' eight, and nine of the 3.850 motion, Purse contends that the trial court erred in failing to address those grounds. The State concedes that the trial court’s orders dealt only with grounds one through six. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall address the issues contained in grounds seven, eight, and nine. See Gonzalez v. State, 829 So.2d 323, 324 (Fla.2d DCA 2002) (“We affirm, without comment, the issues addressed in the trial court’s order, but we reverse and remand for consideration of an issue that the trial court failed to address.”).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED , with directions.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWÁYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 So. 3d 627, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1526, 2016 WL 438128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purse-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack