Skipwith v. State
934 So. 2d 544, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8560, 2006 WL 1476127
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 31, 2006·No. No. 4D04-3581·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
On Motion foe ClaRification
Appellant’s motion for clarification is hereby granted, and we clarify that this court’s per curiam affirmance of this case is without prejudice to appellant’s raising his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Skipwith v. State, 934 So. 2d 544, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8560, 2006 WL 1476127 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
934 So. 2d 544 (Skipwith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brigham v. Brigham
934 So. 2d 544 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)