Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2004

Burgess v. State

Burgess v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided January 14, 2004 · Fulmer, Villanti, Wallace
862 So. 2d 943; 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 221; 2004 WL 57269 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Burgess v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Burgess appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion on the ground that it is facially insufficient. See Saffold v. State, 850 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(3), (4). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Burgess may have to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Saffold, 850 So.2d at 577-78; Cherryhomes v. State, 857 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Affirmed.

FULMER, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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