Stoutamire v. State

John W. STOUTAMIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 20, 1998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-05-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“without prejudice to file a properly sworn rule 3.850 motion before the time expires to do so.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Stoutamire v. State

Relies on 643 So. 2d 635 - Hall v. State · Kapuscinski v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-05-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2018

22 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appellant, Pro Se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Trisha Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The trial court correctly denied appellant's 3.800(a) motion because it did not allege an illegal sentence. Appellant's motion would have been timely filed under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and might have been considered as such by the trial court had the notary's certificate reflected that he took an oath that substantially complied with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.987, see Zipperer v. Singletary,693 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hall v. State,643 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (on rehearing). Since it does not substantially comply, we must affirm; however, our affirmance is without prejudice to file a properly sworn rule 3.850 motion before the time expires to do so.

¶5AFFIRMED.

¶6JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.