JAMES EUBANKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JAMES EUBANKS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
940 So. 2d 605
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2006)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The order denying the appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for attachment of records that conclusively refute the allegations in the motion. See Fenelon v. State, 932 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing because the “trial court failed to attach record evidence to refute the facially sufficient claim”) (citing Johnson v. State, 665 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)).
GUNTHER, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bonilla v. Bank United, 93 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…awal and permits a pro se defendant thirty days to secure new counsel, it would be assumed by anyone that the court would not take action to conclude the case in those thirty days, as the court did in this case. As we stated in Stanford v. Stanford, 940 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006): We deem it a denial of due process to grant a litigant a specific period of time to obtain new counsel and then proceed to try the case before the afforded time has lapsed. So fundamental is the right of a litigant to rely…
Authorities Cited
- Fenelon v. State, 932 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Cuevas v. Cuevas, 665 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Jacobo Jesus Chigin v. State, 665 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)