ST. FLEUR v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ST. FLEUR v. State

44 So. 3d 137, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10565, 2010 WL 2836389

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2010

Docket3D09-2105

StatusPublished

This text of 44 So. 3d 137 (ST. FLEUR 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

ST. FLEUR v. State, 44 So. 3d 137, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10565, 2010 WL 2836389 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because defendant-appellant St. Fleur received a deportation order prior to the announcement of State v. Chreen, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006), the defendant was not entitled to relief under that decision. See Markland v. State, 971 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); St. Fleur v. State, 840 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

With regard to the assertion that there was a double jeopardy violation in connection with the defendant’s sentencing, we have taken judicial notice of this court’s file in St. Fleur v. State, 948 So.2d 769, and conclude that the double jeopardy issue was decided adversely to the defendant in *138 2007. St. Fleur v. State, 948 So.2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because defendant-appellant St. Fleur received a deportation order prior to the announcement of State v. Chreen, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006), the defendant was not entitled to relief under that decision. See Markland v. State, 971 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); St. Fleur v. State, 840 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

With regard to the assertion that there was a double jeopardy violation in connection with the defendant’s sentencing, we have taken judicial notice of this court’s file in St. Fleur v. State, 948 So.2d 769, and conclude that the double jeopardy issue was decided adversely to the defendant in *138 2007. St. Fleur v. State, 948 So.2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 So. 3d 137, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10565, 2010 WL 2836389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-fleur-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack