Rodriguez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriguez v. State

100 So. 3d 1244, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19738, 2012 WL 5499993

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 14, 2012·No. No. 4D12-70·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is redesignated as an appeal from the denial of a rule 3.850 motion. We affirm without prejudice for appellant to file a timely, sworn amendment to his rule 3.850 motion to correct the pleading deficiency in claim IB as provided in the trial court’s November 21, 2011 order. Appellant has until January 21, 2013, to file a timely amendment to his postconviction [1245] motion, which is two years after the mandate on direct appeal.

MAY, C.J., STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is redesignated as an appeal from the denial of a rule 3.850 motion. We affirm without prejudice for appellant to file a timely, sworn amendment to his rule 3.850 motion to correct the pleading deficiency in claim IB as provided in the trial court’s November 21, 2011 order. Appellant has until January 21, 2013, to file a timely amendment to his postconviction [1245] motion, which is two years after the mandate on direct appeal.

MAY, C.J., STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Rodriguez v. State, 100 So. 3d 1244, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19738, 2012 WL 5499993 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

100 So. 3d 1244 (Rodriguez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related