Simonetta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simonetta v. State

732 So. 2d 334, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12451, 1998 WL 689697

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3534

StatusPublished

This text of 732 So. 2d 334 (Simonetta 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

Simonetta v. State, 732 So. 2d 334, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12451, 1998 WL 689697 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John A. Simonetta appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. In that motion, Simonetta alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose sentences upon the revocation of probation in case numbers 87-608 through 87-623 because the concurrent probationary terms in those cases had expired before the affidavit of violation of probation was filed. See Francois v. State, 695 So.2d 695 (Fla.1997). We conclude that the portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order are insufficient to demonstrate that appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Simonetta’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand with directions to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting appellant’s claim or grant the appropriate relief.

BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John A. Simonetta appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. In that motion, Simonetta alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose sentences upon the revocation of probation in case numbers 87-608 through 87-623 because the concurrent probationary terms in those cases had expired before the affidavit of violation of probation was filed. See Francois v. State, 695 So.2d 695 (Fla.1997). We conclude that the portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order are insufficient to demonstrate that appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Simonetta’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand with directions to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting appellant’s claim or grant the appropriate relief.

BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

732 So. 2d 334, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12451, 1998 WL 689697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simonetta-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack