Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

862 So. 2d 943

Burgess v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 14, 2004

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2004-01-14

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 2004

1 state decisions

Relies on 850 So. 2d 574 - Saffold v. State · Allen v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-01-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Clarence Burgess appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion on the ground that it is facially insufficient. See Saffold v. State, 850 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(3), (4). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Burgess may have to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Saffold, 850 So.2d at 577-78; Cherryhomes v. State, 857 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

¶2Affirmed.

FULMER, VILLANTI, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
/862/so2d/943 · .json · Public domain