Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

786 So. 2d 641

Docket No. 4D01-586.

Young v. State

Christopher YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-05-30

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 2004

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-05-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Christopher Young, Sneads, pro se.

¶2No appearance required for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We affirm the order summarily denying Appellant's post-conviction motion. His unnotarized oath was insufficient because the language he used would not subject him to perjury charges if his factual allegations prove to be false. Affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant to file a new motion that includes one of the oaths found in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. The new motion must be filed within the time remaining under 3.850(b).

¶5The order on appeal simply stated that the motion was denied. The trial court did not order a response from the state, attach record excerpts to refute Appellant's factual allegations, or explain the reason for denial. If the court denies Appellant's new motion, the order should show the reason.

¶6STONE, POLEN, and FARMER, JJ., concur.

/786/so2d/641 · .json · Public domain