JOSEPH FRITZNER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2004-01-30
No. 5D03-4067
SAWAYA, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur.
864 So. 2d 574 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2004) Negative Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

Opinion of the Court
SHARP, W., J.

Fritzner appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his amended motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm because Fritzner failed to affirmatively allege that his claim of an illegal sentence can be determined from the face of the record. See McKowen v. State, 816 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). However, as in McKowen, our affirmance is without prejudice to Fritzner to file á facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Trizell E. Johnson v. State, 881 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …OC to compute and apply credit for time served in state prison). The order denying relief is REVERSED, and the case REMANDED to the trial court for the correction of defendant’s sentence. PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Cf. Fritznerv. State, 864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); McKowen v. State, 816 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).…
  • Hankerson v. State, 897 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
    …PER CURIAM. ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE Horace Hankerson filed a petition for writ of mandamus on January 13, 2005, which we treat as a motion to enforce the mandate issued in Hankerson v. State, 864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We recognize that the circuit court attempted to comply with our mandate by issuing an amended order, but the same was directed to the wrong case. Specifically, the amended order should have only referenced case no. 97-387. Acco…
  • Gallinat v. State, 909 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
    …to file a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, or seek other remedies. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We en banc this case because we recede from any inference in Hankerson v. State, 864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) that holding an evidentiary hearing is proper to resolve matters raised in motions filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a). We reaffirm this court’s position on this issue, as expressed in Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw