WILLIE R. LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2006-09-27
No. 1D06-3102
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
939 So. 2d 154 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 38 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated August 9, 2006, we dismiss this appeal. The trial court found the appellant’s claims in his rule 3.850 motion facially insufficient and dismissed the motion without prejudice to refile a facially sufficient motion. Rowe v. State, 932 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Therefore, the trial court’s order is a non-appealable, nonfinal order. Williams v. State, 884 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

DISMISSED.

ALLEN, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (24 total)

  • Howard v. State, 976 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
    …his court and others have concluded that such an order lacks finality and the courts of appeal lack jurisdiction to review it. Kelly v. State, 969 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Quilling v. State, 968 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Lee v. State, 939 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). We note, for the benefit of the trial courts, that the procedure recently detailed by the Supreme Court in Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007), calls for a legally insufficient motion to be stricken, with leave to amend.…
  • Quilling v. State, 968 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
    …missed Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 without prejudice to refile a proper, concise motion. As such, the trial court’s order is a non-final, non-appealable order. Lee v. State, 939 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Williams v. State, 884 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We reject Appellant’s argument that his motion for rehearing was timely filed because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(g) does not authorize rehearing motions directe…
  • Young v. State, 66 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
    …struck the appellant’s postconviction claims as facially insufficient and, in accordance with Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007), granted the appellant thirty days to amend. The order is a nonappealable, nonfinal order. See Lee v. State, 939 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). DISMISSED. BENTON, C.J., HAWKES and CLARK, JJ., concur.…

Previewing 3 of 24 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