Santiago v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding movant must file rule 3.850 motion instead of rule 3.800 motion if claim cannot be resolved from face of record without resorting to fact-finding
• stating that if claim cannot be resolved from face of record without resorting to fact-finding, defendant must file timely rule 3.850 motion
• “[T]he motion must affirmatively allege that the trial court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. A mere conclusory allegation that the answer lies in the record is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of the rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ellis v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-03-21· cited 6×
• Griffith v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-01-13· cited 4×
• Orta v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2010-08-13· cited 1×
• Patterson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-07-27
• Ernest T. Keene v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-10-20
• Nash v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-07-26

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Baker v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-07-27· cited 76×
• Toro v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-10-01· cited 49×
• Maynard v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-07-05· cited 6×
• Alfonso v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-04-27· cited 4×
• Brown v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-09-28· cited 2×