Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2000

Young v. State

Young v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided August 9, 2000 · Hazouri, Polen, Warner
767 So. 2d 531; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10120; 2000 WL 1140433 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Young v. State

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.