ROBERT LEE ALEXANDER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1990-12-26
No. 90-479
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and COPE, JJ.
571 So. 2d 122 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

As the matters contained in appellant Robert Lee Alexander’s post-conviction motion were not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the motion was correctly denied, and would have been long ago time barred if asserted by motion under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Orestes Martell v. State, 676 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
    …o. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). However, the defendant’s conviction became final more than two years ago and he cannot now utilize Rule 3.800(a) as a means of circumventing the strict timing requirements imposed by Rule 3.850. See Alexander v. State, 571 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We commend the trial court’s well reasoned and detailed order which we affirm in all respects. Affirmed.…
  • Harris v. State, 47 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Alexander v. State, 571 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw