Stoutamire v. State
This text of 710 So. 2d 744 (Stoutamire 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.
Opinion
John W. STOUTAMIRE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Appellant, Pro Se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Trisha Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The trial court correctly denied appellant's 3.800(a) motion because it did not allege an illegal sentence. Appellant's motion would have been timely filed under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and might have been considered as such by the trial court had the notary's certificate reflected that he took an oath that substantially complied with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.987, see Zipperer v. Singletary, 693 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hall v. State, 643 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (on rehearing). Since it does not substantially comply, we must affirm; however, our affirmance is without prejudice to file a properly sworn rule 3.850 motion before the time expires to do so.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
710 So. 2d 744, 1998 WL 252137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoutamire-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.