From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Osceola v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 14, 2000
761 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 4D99-3018.

Opinion filed June 14, 2000.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, Judge; L.T. Nos. 97-13622CFB 97-10867CFA.

Angelo Osceola, Malone, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.


Affirmed. As to point I, see Heaton v. State, 711 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) and as to point II, see Gaber v. State, 684 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1996). With respect to the ineffectiveness claim raised in point III, the motion is legally insufficient to warrant relief because it fails to give any supporting facts. See Ragsdale v. State, 720 So.2d 203, 207 (Fla. 1998); Vento v. State, 621 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). While supporting facts are stated in the supporting memorandum of law, the memorandum is not properly sworn and thus the facts recited therein could not be considered by the court. See McBride v. State, 524 So.2d 1113, 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The affirmance on point III is without prejudice to appellant filing, within 30 days of this opinion, a properly sworn motion for postconviction relief containing specific facts. See Steele v. State, 705 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Osceola v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 14, 2000
761 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Osceola v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANGELO OSCEOLA, Appellant v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 14, 2000

Citations

761 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)