Rinderer v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that discrepancy between written and oral sentence is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion
• observing that the postconviction court has discretion to consider a sworn and facially sufficient motion under rule 3.850 even if improperly labeled as a rule 3.800 motion
• requiring the trial court to consider whether claims improperly raised under rule 3.800(a) are facially sufficient under rule 3.850
• remanding the denial of a motion to correct sentence to the postconviction court to reconsider as if filed under rule 3.850 because the motion was sworn and timely under the rule
• reversing the order denying a rule 3.800(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).