Shiflet v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shiflet v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 2013

DocketNo. 4D11-2310

StatusPublished

This text of 125 So. 3d 914 (Shiflet 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 3d 914, 2013 WL 1748605, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shiflet-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.