Whitaker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Whitaker v. State

902 So. 2d 223, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6892, 2005 WL 1115962

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 2005

DocketNo. 1D02-3050

StatusPublished

This text of 902 So. 2d 223 (Whitaker 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

Whitaker v. State, 902 So. 2d 223, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6892, 2005 WL 1115962 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

On The Court’s Own Motion

We sua sponte withdraw our pre-man-date opinion in this case and substitute the following.

PER CURIAM.

The summary denial of the appellant’s postconviction motion is reversed and the [224]*224cause remanded to the trial court to permit the appellant a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his claim is timely under Dickey v. State, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D443, — So.2d -, 2005 WL 350313 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.15, 2005), by alleging the date his present conviction was enhanced by the challenged conviction. Cf. Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004). If no amendment is filed within the time allowed, then the denial can be with prejudice. Id.; Spooner v. State, 889 So.2d 900, 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KAHN, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

On The Court’s Own Motion

We sua sponte withdraw our pre-man-date opinion in this case and substitute the following.

PER CURIAM.

The summary denial of the appellant’s postconviction motion is reversed and the [224]*224cause remanded to the trial court to permit the appellant a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his claim is timely under Dickey v. State, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D443, — So.2d -, 2005 WL 350313 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.15, 2005), by alleging the date his present conviction was enhanced by the challenged conviction. Cf. Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004). If no amendment is filed within the time allowed, then the denial can be with prejudice. Id.; Spooner v. State, 889 So.2d 900, 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KAHN, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

902 So. 2d 223, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6892, 2005 WL 1115962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitaker-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack