MITCHELL J. COOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND MITCHELL J. COOK, P.A., A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID P. HORAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SENIOR PARTNER OF HORAN & HORAN, AND HORAN & HORAN, A PARTNERSHIP OF FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, APPELLEES
MITCHELL J. COOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND MITCHELL J. COOK, P.A., A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS,
DAVID P. HORAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SENIOR PARTNER OF HORAN & HORAN, AND HORAN & HORAN, A PARTNERSHIP OF FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, APPELLEES
787 So. 2d 197
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2001)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Lickert v. Pike, 736 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inc., 178 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaynor v. State, 226 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the denial without comment but remand for correction of a scrivener’s error. See Stevens v. State, 114 So. 3d 485, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Richardson v. State, 787 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Our review of the record reveals a scrivener’s error in the amended judgment entered October 20, 2015. The amended judgment erroneously reflects that Gaynor was convicted in counts two and three of at [*1077] tempted sexua…
-
Bailey v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…d the terms of his plea agreement was cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion); Sweet v. State, 987 So. 2d 747, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that a claim seeking to enforce a plea agreement must be filed under rule 3.850); see also Richardson v. State, 787 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (observing that a claim that a written sentence fails to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion). Accordingly, we must remand for further proceedings before the postconviction co…
Authorities Cited
- Goff v. Indian Lake Ests., Inc., 178 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Lickert v. Pike, 736 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)