Williams v. State

700 So. 2d 470, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11999, 1997 WL 656300
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 650 So. 2d 1054
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 23, 1997·No. No. 97-2004·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order by which his posteonviction motion, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, was denied as facially insufficient. His motion did not comply with subsection (c) of the rule because it was not sworn and failed to indicate whether he had filed a direct appeal or previous motion. See Groves v. State, 668 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We therefore affirm, but do so without prejudice for him to refile a timely motion which complies with Rule 3.850.

MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

Williams v. State, 700 So. 2d 470, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11999, 1997 WL 656300 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

700 So. 2d 470 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Groves v. State
668 So. 2d 1089 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)