Rainey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rainey v. State

907 So. 2d 1202, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8264, 2005 WL 1309159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 2005

DocketNo. 5D04-2399

StatusPublished

This text of 907 So. 2d 1202 (Rainey 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

907 So. 2d 1202, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8264, 2005 WL 1309159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainey-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack