CHEDDRICK THOMAS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Murray v. State, 1 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
  …denied the rule 3.853 motion as untimely, Murray failed to allege a facially sufficient basis for relief. Accordingly, this court affirmed the denial without prejudice to Murray to refile a facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion. See Murray v. State, 978 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). On remand, Murray filed a second pro se motion for DNA testing. At the time of that filing counsel was still appointed for the evidentiary hearing on his rule 3.850 motion. The postconviction court, citing Wright v. State, 766 S…
• Powell v. State, 12 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
  …d. [*1271] Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of the motion because it is facially insufficient. Our affirmance is without prejudice to Powell’s right to file a facially sufficient rule 3.85B motion. See, e.g., Murray v. State, 978 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Harvey v. State, 925 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Scarborough v. State, 906 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Affirmed. WALLACE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…

Authorities Cited

• State v. Tatakis, 847 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
• Sanders v. State, 847 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)