REGINALD O'KEITH WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sworn Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s 3.850 motion in which he claimed that his plea of guilty was involuntarily entered because he was under the influence of prescription drugs at the time of the entry of the plea.
The trial court denied the motion, relying upon portions of the record of the proceedings below, including a negotiated plea form, none of which portions of the record was attached to the order. We would ordinarily, therefore, reverse such summary denial. However, the motion is patently insufficient in that it is not under oath as required by Rule 3.850 and also fails to include the information required by Rule 3.850(b), (c) and (d). We therefore affirm, but without prejudice to the filing of a sworn motion in conformance with the Rule. See Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 561 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…clude the information required by Rule 3.850(b), (c) and (d). [*1350] We therefore affirm, but without prejudice to the filing of a sworn motion in conformance with the Rule. See Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Williams I”). Consistent with our earlier opinion, the appellant filed another motion which sought to cure the technical deficiencies found to exist in Williams I. The trial court entered the subject order of denial on the bas…
-
Flint v. State, 561 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ment 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.…
-
Puig v. State, 636 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…tconviction motion has been filed, and. if so, how many,” and, “if a previous motion or motions have been filed, the reason or reasons the claim or claims in the present motion were not raised in the former motion or motions.” See Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Additionally, defendant did not allege Lopez was available to testify; thus, the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Lopez must also fail on that basis. Williamson v. State, 559 So. 2d 723, 724 (Fla. 1s…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jodie Leon Hoewischer v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)