Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2013

Hall v. State

Hall v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided November 27, 2013 · Crenshaw, Morris, Silberman
127 So. 3d 824; 2013 WL 6223407; 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18903 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Hall v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The postconviction court’s partial denial of Stephen A. Hall’s motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is affirmed without prejudice for Hall to file a motion under rule 3.801. If Hall chooses to filé a rule 3.801 motion, it must comply with the requirements out*825lined in rules 3.801(b), (c), (e), and 3.850(n). Upon receipt of a rule 3.801 motion, the court must follow the procedure outlined in rule 3.850(f). See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.801(e) (effective July 1, 2013). Because it appears that Hall’s time to file a rule 3.801 motion will have expired during the pen-dency of this appeal, if he files such a motion within thirty days of the date this opinion becomes final, it shall not be considered untimely.

Affirmed without prejudice.

SILBERMAN, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

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