Savino v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Savino v. State

397 So. 2d 1236

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 1981

DocketNo. 81-145

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 397 So. 2d 1236 (Savino 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

Savino v. State, 397 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We previously dismissed this appeal from an order denying post conviction relief because it appeared the Notice of Appeal was untimely filed. On motion for reconsideration appellant has demonstrated that his Notice of Appeal was actually timely filed with the clerk of the lower court. Accordingly, we grant the motion for reconsideration and vacate the order of dismissal entered April 2, 1981.

We now consider appellant’s motion for post conviction relief and the trial court’s order denying same, together with appellant’s various motions filed in this court. It is clear that appellant is not entitled to post conviction relief because the question now presented was also presented to the trial court prior to a plenary appeal which appellant perfected in Cases # 78-1502 and # 78-1504. The question presented here was not raised in those appeals, but should have been. Adams v. State, 380 So.2d 423 (Fla.1980); Mitchell v. State, 381 So.2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The order appealed from is affirmed.

DOWNEY, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We previously dismissed this appeal from an order denying post conviction relief because it appeared the Notice of Appeal was untimely filed. On motion for reconsideration appellant has demonstrated that his Notice of Appeal was actually timely filed with the clerk of the lower court. Accordingly, we grant the motion for reconsideration and vacate the order of dismissal entered April 2, 1981.

We now consider appellant’s motion for post conviction relief and the trial court’s order denying same, together with appellant’s various motions filed in this court. It is clear that appellant is not entitled to post conviction relief because the question now presented was also presented to the trial court prior to a plenary appeal which appellant perfected in Cases # 78-1502 and # 78-1504. The question presented here was not raised in those appeals, but should have been. Adams v. State, 380 So.2d 423 (Fla.1980); Mitchell v. State, 381 So.2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The order appealed from is affirmed.

DOWNEY, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 So. 2d 1236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savino-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack