Stallings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stallings v. State

736 So. 2d 17, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3853, 1999 WL 164139

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1999

DocketNo. 98-04754

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 736 So. 2d 17 (Stallings 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

Stallings v. State, 736 So. 2d 17, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3853, 1999 WL 164139 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jackson Stallings appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief from a 1973 conviction, which he did not appeal. This is his fourth motion attacking his conviction or sentence, and, as found by the trial court, is time-barred. Stallings’ rationale for missing the two-year time frame imposed on motions filed pursuant to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850 is that he is illiterate, which does not excuse the time limitations of the rule. The order of the trial court denying relief is affirmed.

Stallings alleges that his plea to rape should be set aside because he was charged by information, rather than by indictment. Because the offense for which Stallings was charged and convicted was not subject to the death penalty, the State was not required to charge him by indictment. See Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987).

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jackson Stallings appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief from a 1973 conviction, which he did not appeal. This is his fourth motion attacking his conviction or sentence, and, as found by the trial court, is time-barred. Stallings’ rationale for missing the two-year time frame imposed on motions filed pursuant to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850 is that he is illiterate, which does not excuse the time limitations of the rule. The order of the trial court denying relief is affirmed.

Stallings alleges that his plea to rape should be set aside because he was charged by information, rather than by indictment. Because the offense for which Stallings was charged and convicted was not subject to the death penalty, the State was not required to charge him by indictment. See Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987).

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

736 So. 2d 17, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3853, 1999 WL 164139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stallings-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack