LACCE WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
LACCE WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
710 So. 2d 76
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1998)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Hitchcock v. State, 413 So. 2d 741, 744 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 960, 103 S.Ct. 274, 74 L.Ed.2d 213 (1982); see also State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.
Dissent
COPE, Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse on authority of Hayes v. State, 660 So. 2d 257, 265-66 (Fla.1995); see also Rose v. State, 617 So. 2d 291, 297 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lacce Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ce the Rule 3.800(a) motion could have been treated as a timely Rule 3.850 motion, the procedural error had no practical significance in that case. In this case the appellant’s conviction became final on direct appeal in 1998. See Wright v. State, 710 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Since under this court’s precedent the motion cannot be entertained under Rule 3.800(a), and since the motion is time-barred if considered under Rule 3.850, it follows that affirmance is in order here.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Hitchcock v. State, 413 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1982)
- Milo A. Rose v. State, 617 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1993)
- Hayes v. State, 660 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1995)
- Strickland v. Zant, 459 U.S. 960 (U.S. 1982)