Young v. State

767 So. 2d 531, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10120, 2000 WL 1140433
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Young v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 719 So. 2d 1010
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 9, 2000·No. No. 4D00-2092·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Markham Young’s postconviction motion. Young has advised this court that his copy of the order denying his motion did not include the record excerpts that the trial court attached. Rule 3.850(g) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the clerk of the court to serve the movant with a copy of the order denying the motion. Young was entitled to receive a complete copy, including all attachments.

Since Young has not claimed that he was prejudiced in his ability to present his arguments on appeal, the omission of the attachments does not require reversal. On remand, the court shall see that he receives a complete copy of the order.

WARNER, C.J., POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

Young v. State, 767 So. 2d 531, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10120, 2000 WL 1140433 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

767 So. 2d 531 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.