Stucky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stucky v. State

251 So. 3d 356

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 24, 2018·No. Case No. 5D18-580·Published

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.

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

Pincite

251 So. 3d 356 (Stucky v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related