Rainey v. State

907 So. 2d 1202, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8264, 2005 WL 1309159
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 3, 2005·No. No. 5D04-2399·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Rainey appeals the denial of his motion and amended motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing with respect to the original motion and found that Mr. Rainey was not entitled to relief. We find no error, particularly in view of the trial court’s findings of fact. See Swafford v. State, 828 So.2d 966 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 982, 123 S.Ct. 1795, 155 L.Ed.2d 674 (2003). While the trial court erroneously concluded that the additional issues raised in the amended motion were untimely, we find no cause for reversal. See Nelson v. State, 816 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Each of the additional claims is either facially insufficient or refuted by the record before us.

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, ORFINGER, and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

Rainey v. State, 907 So. 2d 1202, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8264, 2005 WL 1309159 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

907 So. 2d 1202 (Rainey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mullally v. City of Los Angeles, California
538 U.S. 982 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Swafford v. State
828 So. 2d 966 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
Nelson v. State
816 So. 2d 694 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)