Travieso v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Travieso v. State

852 So. 2d 328, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11772, 2003 WL 21800478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 6, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-4326

StatusPublished

This text of 852 So. 2d 328 (Travieso 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

Travieso v. State, 852 So. 2d 328, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11772, 2003 WL 21800478 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order striking his motion for post conviction relief and motion for rehearing filed in connection with pleas he entered in 1987 and 1996 cases. Noting their exact similarity to some twenty-four motions filed by seven other defendants incarcerated at the same federal correctional institution, the trial court determined both motions were fraudulent and struck them. We' find no authority under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizing a court to strike a motion for post conviction relief as a sham pleading. We reverse for the reasons discussed in Mullins v. State, 850 So.2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). On remand, the trial court shall rule on the motions.

FARMER, C.J., WARNER, and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order striking his motion for post conviction relief and motion for rehearing filed in connection with pleas he entered in 1987 and 1996 cases. Noting their exact similarity to some twenty-four motions filed by seven other defendants incarcerated at the same federal correctional institution, the trial court determined both motions were fraudulent and struck them. We' find no authority under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizing a court to strike a motion for post conviction relief as a sham pleading. We reverse for the reasons discussed in Mullins v. State, 850 So.2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). On remand, the trial court shall rule on the motions.

FARMER, C.J., WARNER, and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

852 So. 2d 328, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11772, 2003 WL 21800478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travieso-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack