JOHN W. STOUTAMIRE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timeliness Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court correctly denied appellant’s 8.800(a) motion because it did not allege an illegal sentence. Appellant’s motion would have been timely filed under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and might have been considered as such by the trial court had the notary’s certificate reflected that he took an oath that substantially complied with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.987, see Zipperer v. Singletary, 693 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (on rehearing). Since it does not substantially comply, we must affirm; however, our affir-mance is without prejudice to file a properly sworn rule 3.850 motion before the time expires to do so.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ial court erred in denying her request for alimony and attorney’s fees without making any findings of fact. A trial court is required to include the relative findings of fact that were considered in awarding or denying alimony. See Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Likewise, a trial court cannot decide the issue of attorney’s fees without findings as to one spouse’s ability to pay fees and the other spouse’s need to have fees paid. See [*1025] Schlafke v. Schlafke, 755 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th…
-
Feger v. Feger, 850 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…is rehabilitation program.. ALIMONY Section 61.08 authorizes a trial court to award permanent alimony. In doing so, a trial court is required to consider the factors set forth in section 61.08(2) and to make findings of fact. See Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In its order on rehearing the trial court considered the significant alteration of the parties’ relationship caused by Mr. Feger’s stroke and his precipitous and mysterious relocation, as well as the number of years of inta…
-
Cleary v. Maria Tereza De Castelo Branco Ferreira Cleary, 872 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…n-marital assets. See § 61.075(3) (requiring [*302] that “any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence”); see also Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, before a trial court can make these determinations, it must establish a cut-off date, in accordance with section 61.075(6), for determining whether assets and liabilities should be classified as marital. See § 61.075(6)…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Kapuscinski v. State, 693 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Zipperer v. Singletary, 693 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)