Wilkey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wilkey v. State

712 So. 2d 847, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8490, 1998 WL 390835

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1998

DocketNo. 98-1427

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 712 So. 2d 847 (Wilkey 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

Wilkey v. State, 712 So. 2d 847, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8490, 1998 WL 390835 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing or for record attachments to refute appellant’s claim that his fifteen-year sentence entered pursuant to his probation violation is illegal. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1993). The record before the trial court did not reveal whether appellant’s violation was substantive or technical. See, e.g., Dunbar v. State, 664 So.2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

We note that the state has attempted to cure the record deficiency by supplying information to this court in an appendix. However, this is insufficient to cure the lack of support for the trial court’s order. See Wheeler v. State, 634 So.2d 213, 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing or for record attachments to refute appellant’s claim that his fifteen-year sentence entered pursuant to his probation violation is illegal. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1993). The record before the trial court did not reveal whether appellant’s violation was substantive or technical. See, e.g., Dunbar v. State, 664 So.2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

We note that the state has attempted to cure the record deficiency by supplying information to this court in an appendix. However, this is insufficient to cure the lack of support for the trial court’s order. See Wheeler v. State, 634 So.2d 213, 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 847, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8490, 1998 WL 390835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkey-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack