Wirt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wirt v. State

461 So. 2d 207, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2644, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16271

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1984

DocketNo. BA-113

StatusPublished

This text of 461 So. 2d 207 (Wirt 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

Wirt v. State, 461 So. 2d 207, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2644, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16271 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of the denial of his Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. In denying appellant’s motion the court declined to rule on the merits thereof, indicating merely that it was “without jurisdiction.” However, no jurisdictional defect is'apparent on the face of appellant’s motion. The court should therefore attach supporting documentation indicating a lack of jurisdiction; if such documentation is not provided the court should consider the merits of appellant’s motion.

Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the court either attach supporting documentation or consider the merits of appellant’s motion.

MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of the denial of his Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. In denying appellant’s motion the court declined to rule on the merits thereof, indicating merely that it was “without jurisdiction.” However, no jurisdictional defect is'apparent on the face of appellant’s motion. The court should therefore attach supporting documentation indicating a lack of jurisdiction; if such documentation is not provided the court should consider the merits of appellant’s motion.

Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the court either attach supporting documentation or consider the merits of appellant’s motion.

MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

461 So. 2d 207, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2644, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wirt-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.