¶1Affirmed. Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s filing a legally sufficient motion at the conclusion of his appeal. See Catis v. State, 741 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 735 So.2d 1284 (1999)(citing Vento v. State, 621 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), 3.850 motion legally insufficient where defendant failed to provide sufficient facts supporting his claim of ineffectiveness).
783 So. 2d 325
Melton v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided April 11, 2001
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-04-11
Relies on 735 So. 2d 1281 - Hoskins v. State · 621 So. 2d 493 - Vento v. State · 741 So. 2d 1140 - Catis v. State
Decided 2001-04-11