Washburn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Washburn v. State

805 So. 2d 1057, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 387, 2002 WL 83766

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 23, 2002·No. No. 1D01-1181·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s motion, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), is facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief, and we therefore affirm the summary denial of this claim. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998); Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). However, this affirmance is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to refile a facially sufficient motion under rule 3.800, if he is able to do so. The present denial will not stand as a bar to a successive motion raising [1058] these claims. See Tranquille v. State, 747 So.2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, BARFIELD, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s motion, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), is facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief, and we therefore affirm the summary denial of this claim. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998); Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). However, this affirmance is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to refile a facially sufficient motion under rule 3.800, if he is able to do so. The present denial will not stand as a bar to a successive motion raising [1058] these claims. See Tranquille v. State, 747 So.2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, BARFIELD, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Washburn v. State, 805 So. 2d 1057, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 387, 2002 WL 83766 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

805 So. 2d 1057 (Washburn v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related