Richards v. State
Richards v. State
813 So. 2d 1016; 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4293; 2002 WL 491929
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Richards v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm the circuit court’s order denying appellant’s 3.850 motion. The circuit court denied the motion as being untimely, but we find that the motion was timely filed pursuant to Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42, 46 (Fla. 2000). Nonetheless, we affirm the circuit court’s order because appellant’s motion failed to include all of the information required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 3.850(c). However, this affirmance is without prejudice to appellant filing a motion that includes the information required by rule 3.850(c) no later than thirty (30) days from the issuance of the mandate.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.