Tunsil v. State
929 So. 2d 665, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7749, 2006 WL 1330027
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 17, 2006
DocketNo. 3D06-884
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 929 So. 2d 665 (Tunsil 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
Tunsil v. State, 929 So. 2d 665, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7749, 2006 WL 1330027 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
Opinion
Affirmed. See Reese v. State, 899 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (confirming that infirmity in notice of intent to seek enhanced sentence must be raised in a timely Rule 3.850 motion); Tunsil v. State, 797 So.2d 651, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(re-manding for resentencing as expressly ordered and stating “[defendant need not be present” for same).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Taylor v. State
929 So. 2d 665 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
929 So. 2d 665, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7749, 2006 WL 1330027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tunsil-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.