Stucky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stucky v. State

251 So. 3d 356

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D18-580

StatusPublished

This text of 251 So. 3d 356 (Stucky 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

Stucky v. State, 251 So. 3d 356 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied Appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for DNA testing because it was facially insufficient. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2). We agree and affirm without prejudice. Appellant may refile a facially sufficient motion if he can do so in good faith. See Rosa v. State , 147 So.3d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Luckner v. State , 979 So.2d 1121, 1121-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied Appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion for DNA testing because it was facially insufficient. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2). We agree and affirm without prejudice. Appellant may refile a facially sufficient motion if he can do so in good faith. See Rosa v. State , 147 So.3d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Luckner v. State , 979 So.2d 1121, 1121-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 So. 3d 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stucky-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack