Rivera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rivera v. State

56 So. 3d 906, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3572, 2011 WL 917537

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 2011

DocketNo. 5D10-4394

StatusPublished

This text of 56 So. 3d 906 (Rivera 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

Rivera v. State, 56 So. 3d 906, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3572, 2011 WL 917537 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court summarily denied Appellant’s motion without attaching records or providing reasons. Perhaps the trial court believed the motion was successive because of the way Appellant labeled his motion. It is neither successive nor untimely. It is facially insufficient, however, but Appellant should have been given an opportunity to amend the motion. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). The State properly concedes error.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court summarily denied Appellant’s motion without attaching records or providing reasons. Perhaps the trial court believed the motion was successive because of the way Appellant labeled his motion. It is neither successive nor untimely. It is facially insufficient, however, but Appellant should have been given an opportunity to amend the motion. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). The State properly concedes error.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 So. 3d 906, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3572, 2011 WL 917537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack