Vogel v. Ferris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vogel v. Ferris

513 So. 2d 1100, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2411, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10585

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 1987

DocketNo.. 4-86-3082

StatusPublished

This text of 513 So. 2d 1100 (Vogel v. Ferris) 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

Vogel v. Ferris, 513 So. 2d 1100, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2411, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10585 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner David Vogel files this petition for writ of mandamus or habeas corpus, which we treat as an appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), from an order by the Broward Circuit Court summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

The motion for post-conviction relief did not contain the oath required under the rule. The trial court apparently entered two orders denying the motion. The first order denied the motion on its merits, the second order denied the motion for lack of proper verification. Despite this apparently inadvertent duplication of effort, the trial court properly denied the motion since it lacked the required oath. Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985). We affirm without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file a sworn motion.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner David Vogel files this petition for writ of mandamus or habeas corpus, which we treat as an appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), from an order by the Broward Circuit Court summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

The motion for post-conviction relief did not contain the oath required under the rule. The trial court apparently entered two orders denying the motion. The first order denied the motion on its merits, the second order denied the motion for lack of proper verification. Despite this apparently inadvertent duplication of effort, the trial court properly denied the motion since it lacked the required oath. Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1985). We affirm without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file a sworn motion.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 1100, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2411, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogel-v-ferris-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack