Reese v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reese v. State

592 So. 2d 326, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 203, 1992 WL 276

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Reese v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 639 So. 2d 1067 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 3, 1992·No. No. 91-3068·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We accept jurisdiction of this late-filed appeal since the trial court did not state in its order denying post-conviction relief that the movant had a right to appeal within thirty days of rendition of the order. See Rule 3.850(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; State ex rel. Shevin v. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, 316 So.2d 50 (Fla.1975); Cox v. State, 583 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

We have considered appellant’s argument on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief. Accordingly we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DELL, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We accept jurisdiction of this late-filed appeal since the trial court did not state in its order denying post-conviction relief that the movant had a right to appeal within thirty days of rendition of the order. See Rule 3.850(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; State ex rel. Shevin v. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, 316 So.2d 50 (Fla.1975); Cox v. State, 583 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

We have considered appellant’s argument on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief. Accordingly we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DELL, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

Reese v. State, 592 So. 2d 326, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 203, 1992 WL 276 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

592 So. 2d 326 (Reese v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related