Travis R. Stucky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 20, 2018·No. 5D18-580·Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TRAVIS RAY STUCKY,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-580

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 24, 2018

3.853 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Robin C. Lemonidis, Judge.

Travis Ray Stucky, Bushnell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

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

Travis R. Stucky v. State, (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Travis R. Stucky v. State (Travis R. Stucky v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LUCKNER v. State
979 So. 2d 1121 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Hector Rosa v. State
147 So. 3d 583 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)