RICHARD E. GARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
RICHARD E. GARD, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
805 So. 2d 954
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2001)
Caution
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Richard E. Gard appeals the summary denial of his pro se motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion as untimely. We affirm because Gard’s barely intelligible motion is facially insufficient. If, as Gard asserts in his motion for rehearing, he was attempting to withdraw his plea pursuant to Murphy v. State, 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the motion was timely. This affir-mance is therefore without prejudice to Gard’s right to file a facially sufficient motion seeking that relief.
Affirmed.
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN and SILBERMAN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hampton v. State, 803 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…). Because Mr. Hampton agreed to plead guilty in exchange for sentences with a maximum term of six years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender, we conclude that this case is distinguishable from Pankhurst and is controlled instead by Barker v. State, 805 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm. In 1991, Mr. Hampton entered a plea of nolo contendere to two charges of sale of cocaine in case numbers 90-480 and 90-476 and to a sale of counterfeit controlled substance in case number 90-481. He was e…
Authorities Cited
- Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Ctrs., Inc., 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)