Vargas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vargas v. State

875 So. 2d 726, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8046, 2004 WL 1252708

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 2004

DocketNo. 2D04-194

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 875 So. 2d 726 (Vargas 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

Vargas v. State, 875 So. 2d 726, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8046, 2004 WL 1252708 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Billy Vargas challenges the order of the trial court denying as facially insufficient his motion for DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm without prejudice to any right Vargas might have to file a timely, facially sufficient 3.853 motion in accordance with the time limitations outlined in that rule, or within sixty days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case should this be the later date. See Saffold v. State, 850 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that a rule 3.853 motion that does not contain at least some information as to the primary evidence against the movant and any defense employed at trial, does not provide a facially sufficient statement to meet the requirements of subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) of the rule).

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SALCINES, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Billy Vargas challenges the order of the trial court denying as facially insufficient his motion for DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm without prejudice to any right Vargas might have to file a timely, facially sufficient 3.853 motion in accordance with the time limitations outlined in that rule, or within sixty days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case should this be the later date. See Saffold v. State, 850 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that a rule 3.853 motion that does not contain at least some information as to the primary evidence against the movant and any defense employed at trial, does not provide a facially sufficient statement to meet the requirements of subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) of the rule).

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SALCINES, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

875 So. 2d 726, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8046, 2004 WL 1252708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack