Shaw v. State
93 So. 3d 1120, 2012 WL 3023166, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12117
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Shaw v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20561 →
Opinion
We affirm the denial of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion. The motion was untimely. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. Further, appellant’s claim is without merit. Maestas v. State, 76 So.3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shaw v. State, 93 So. 3d 1120, 2012 WL 3023166, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12117 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).
93 So. 3d 1120 (Shaw v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Maestas v. State
76 So. 3d 991 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)