CLARENCE BURGESS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2004-01-14
No. 2D03-2495
FULMER, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
862 So. 2d 943 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2004) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Burgess appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion on the ground that it is facially insufficient. See Saffold v. State, 850 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(3), (4). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Burgess may have to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Saffold, 850 So. 2d at 577-78; Cherryhomes v. State, 857 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Affirmed.

FULMER, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Gray v. State, 868 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
    …. 2d DCA 2003); Fla. R.Crim P. 3.850(b)(4). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Gray may have to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty [*634] days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Burgess v. State, 862 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Affirmed. WHATLEY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw