JEROME MAXWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JEROME MAXWELL, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
895 So. 2d 1171
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2005)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
Appellant, Jerome Maxwell, appeals the denial of his Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800, Fla. R.Crim. P. We affirm. See Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kandice K. Francavilla v. Francavilla, 969 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ack and forth over the terms. The wife used the services of an attorney who drafted the agreement. After the agreement was drafted, the wife negotiated a favorable cost of living increase reflected in the handwritten changes. See Herrera v. Herrera, 895 So. 2d 1171, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Other facts softened the coercive effect of the pregnancy on the wife, but we see no reason to air them in a public document. The husband’s ultimatum that he would not marry the wife without a prenuptial agreement does not…
-
Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…blic importance. Validity of Prenuptial Agreement A trial court’s decision to uphold an antenuptial agreement must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Waton v. Waton, 887 So. 2d 419, 421-22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Herrera v. Herrera, 895 So. 2d 1171, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). A party may challenge a prenuptial agreement in one of two ways. The first ground for setting aside an antenuptial agreement is satisfied where a spouse establishes that the agreement was the product of “fraud, deceit, dur…
-
Marbulk Shipping, Inc. v. Kashi Kant Bhagat, 948 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…of law. See Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Smith, 416 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (order entered by trial court precluding any deposition of the attorney was overly broad and departed from the essential requirements of law); Herrera v. Herrera, 895 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (attorney-client privilege not violated where attorney testified in divorce action and was not asked about confidential communications with client). Petition for writ of certiorari is denied.…
Authorities Cited
- Westerheide v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)