Skip to main content

Shaw v. State

Citations

  • 780 So. 2d 188
  • 2001 WL 76950

How courts have described this case

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

  • affirming the denial of a rule 3.800 motion which, if treated properly as a rule 3.850 motion, would be untimely
  • “[T]o the 2 extent that Shaw’s supporting memorandum suggests that the trial court also failed to file written findings for a departure sentence, this is not properly raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion and we affirm as to this claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.