OPHATELL CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
OPHATELL CLARK, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
43 So. 3d 154
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2010)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed. See Flores v. State, 4D08-3866, — So.3d -, 2010 WL 2882465 (Fla. 4th DCA July 14, 2010).
GROSS, C.J., WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle v. State, 77 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…of Criminal Procedure 3.800 was denied by the trial court. Because the motion challenges the defendant’s conviction rather than his sentence, we treat his motion as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g., Rivas v. State, 43 So. 3d 154, 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Hilbert v. State, 661 So. 2d 895, 895-96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The motion was untimely on its face and thus properly denied. Affirmed.…
-
Bush v. State, 79 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 was denied by the trial court. Because the defendant is challenging his conviction rather than his sentence, we treat his motion as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g., Rivas v. State, 43 So. 3d 154, 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). The motion, pursuant to this Court’s precedent in Little v. State, 77 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), was legally insufficient on its face and thus properly denied. Affirmed.…