Serrano v. State

653 So. 2d 509, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4392, 1995 WL 238638

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Natividad Serrano appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief. He raises four points on appeal. We find that three of those points are time-barred because Serrano failed to raise them within two years of the time that his sentence became final, as required by rule 3.850(b). However, we find one issue on appeal — regarding Serrano’s claim that the sentences are excessive and illegal — to be facially sufficient and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing or attachment of those portions of the record refuting Serrano’s claim that his sentence is in excess of the maximum authorized by law.

GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.