Flint v. State, 89-2343
| Decision Date | 01 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2343,89-2343 |
| Citation | 561 So.2d 1343 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1505 Melinda Diane FLINT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel A. McKeever, Jr., Live Oak, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., William A. Hatch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant appeals from an order summarily denying her "Motion For New Trial (Newly Discovered Evidence)." The motion recited that it was filed pursuant to Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.600. Although the motion was not filed within the ten-day period provided for by Rule 3.590, another panel of this court, in an earlier unpublished order entered herein, appropriately construed the appellant's motion as a Rule 3.850 motion in accordance with the Supreme Court's holding in Richardson v. State, 546 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1989) ().
We affirm the order denying the above motion because the motion failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.850, including the requirement that the motion be under oath. The motion is further facially insufficient because the allegations thereof contain mere conclusions. This affirmance is without prejudice to the filing of a motion in conformance with the Rule. Williams v. State, 539 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
The appellant also appeals from another order denying the appellant's motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence. We have examined the issue raised thereunder and find appellant's argument to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., and THOMPSON, FORD L. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drew v. Department of Corrections, No. 99-4176.
...prejudice to the movant's ability to refile his claims." Magistrate's Report and Recommendation at 6 (citing Flint v. State, 561 So.2d 1343, 1344 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990); Long v. State, 555 So.2d 434, 435 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1990)). In its brief to this Court, Florida suggests that its about-......
-
Reaves v. State, 91-1972
...So.2d 397 (Fla.1991). General allegations or mere conclusions are insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief. Flint v. State, 561 So.2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Williams v. State, 553 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Moreover, "[a] court considering a claim of ineffectiveness of......
-
Wooden v. State, 91-523
...on the stated ground. It nevertheless urges affirmance based on the conclusory nature of the allegation, citing Flint v. State, 561 So.2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (a 3.850 motion is facially insufficient when the allegations thereof contain mere We agree that, as to the allegation of ......
-
Williams v. State, 91-1979
...attorney general, we affirm the order denying relief, on the ground that the allegations are mere conclusions. See Flint v. State, 561 So.2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Toler v. State, 196 So.2d 1, 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Dancy v. State, 175 So.2d 208, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). However, ou......