Shiflet v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shiflet v. State

125 So. 3d 914, 2013 WL 1748605, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6548

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Shiflet v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15014 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 24, 2013·No. No. 4D11-2310·Published

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR CORRECTION, REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION OF OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for correction, rehearing or clarification of opinion, we grant only the motion for correction, withdrawing the previous opinion and substituting the following to indicate that the appeal is of an order denying a Rule 3.800 motion, instead of a Rule 3.850.

Affirmed.

POLEN, TAYLOR and Conner, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR CORRECTION, REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION OF OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for correction, rehearing or clarification of opinion, we grant only the motion for correction, withdrawing the previous opinion and substituting the following to indicate that the appeal is of an order denying a Rule 3.800 motion, instead of a Rule 3.850.

Affirmed.

POLEN, TAYLOR and Conner, JJ., concur.

Shiflet v. State, 125 So. 3d 914, 2013 WL 1748605, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6548 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

125 So. 3d 914 (Shiflet v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.