Love v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Paige v. State

    645 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, the rationale in the present decision does not conflict with either Woolbright or Love. We further do not consider Love v. State, 625 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), to be controlling, since that decision, while purporting to follow Woolbright and the first Love decision, does not mention a date of filing for the 3.850 motion. BARFIELD, KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

  2. Love v. State

    638 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

    Love appealed the October 16, 1992 order to this court, which reversed and remanded for further proceedings based on Woolbright v. State, 606 So.2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (the two-year limitation period of Rule 3.850 is inapplicable where a defendant's right to appeal is frustrated by trial counsel's conduct and the motion pertains to conduct occurring prior to State v. First District Court of Appeal, 569 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1990)). See Love v. State, 625 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The Love mandate issued on November 8, 1993.