18 Sep 2013 ... F\ow\e. t 52z74 Co:3A l%(Eb.hx. ... a & s«pem co«et cces os(2×t«w pxás c¼e rec
«ch * ... es ions oÑ xhe secorÅ xhxx coAcÀaSNEÀ CeÑÌ* e e.
ORIDA SUPREME COURT
BOBBY A. LaTULIP, Appellant, vs.
Case No.: SC13-1866
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
/
APPELLANT'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF on review from the district court
of appeal, Fifth District
State of FLORIDA
TABLE OF COMTE.t4T S P$e. Ño.^
TA6LE oE cJegts
t
T AE LE_ OF alT A31c t45
t i
ST A-tEmran of cASE føb EAcãs
1 -Q
TuP45~0\cmor¼L STA1F_tAEtAz
3
QUEST1otùS PRESEr4xE-6
Ö~Ñ
ARGAMErax VoA QuEs,.to A oAE ARGut%As FaA QuEsxxord wo APGQME»¤ EoR QuasxroA ½\REÆ
A -b (o-B S-lO
Co A c_LAsto A
to
C-E_A~EFlc A3F_ OE SE¼Tc
Awso
(G
TABLE OV CHAmon$ Coe Cited
P e.
AMusou¼Sø:s«, 70 %A b1(Eh-bx.bcA 20ot) bas¼s 4·%%¶15 %.A (%%Gk.¼k.tcAxo$
9 6
sc%esS.wxe,se:,.n etc(Eb.sk ecAmA
1
(¼xw 4-½ve, 33 SoA 1As (Eh.¼bCA ¼\ol
6
(WC$ %.½xe, th %.4°t%CRa.3A tx'AM:R) b«ees øvxte,1%9:Asa(acs. anecA;Lcuo3 G5àtSwe,stsSo.An(Ra.stkbc
'T 5
F\ow\e. t 52z74 Co:3A l%(Eb.hx. tcA Jeu) cord 4.Sw:e, (co bu t3&lE¼.sth bc A3e
6
kowis 4.ST«R 6% 53A 34 (E¼. AòCA iW McLees v swe, &¶5o. àq-to541 (Fw.tsv.bcA
a
f,¼ 4.S>xosxq%YI Sa A94% (Ra-KD \ox 4.Sxwxg i Ss.M LO'ÉRA.su DCA D-oO
9
odelo ¼Sve,43%Ê G% lfb.'dot
\\uad (Sate,7% ,M GTI(RaaA bcA Ms)
\e$ 4.Cávxe, 13 Ra,\_\.Aee¼\ ,624(fl«.Ath Bc oss 9 Swxe, 26%As5CE¼.
1
e
C\
bcA acne')
Pt>\ac_K.4 .Sto:xe,45 So.u As:> CE¼.M DC A 2Gi'A)
6 o
Se¼¼ ¼5xcq¶T153A%)lF(a.sA. bcA peo m (Saxe,q'mo.A7sg (Eg.7cmN 5xepheAsoA ¼.½te,14%.d1%o(Ra.3,.cc 5xo¥Ah tegàw Got ,Ah Co«tz. Sa Ace_ à à uw
Asquxel%da
cowxs nues ox10û tekew ps,ávas & Se seco(&xo
tehve. each gro d',' f¼Å% %)e\½ á\\ òow tkà Òutx (oc ox
easx,t¼eJos, (
eo«s ¼»1¼t Secod Däxcà1 Cod ¼s oxxachel
x¼_ recocA Roc enc¼o$coud aoà bas a\so goat a tecod Sc each
c cowd's k t vaak coutx mos, arco-ch,o cts ocòec 50se otxions 0Ñ+e Cecat& w¼ch coachtsme\y eswah\ish a:t * oge\\aax s emraea to wo tt\èÑ e zo Se
dans oMawceA a
a
eh às teasons 4x so cok
?leepusis
Lersáu½e, (JuSoak wy GHo& tcA fm\ Ta* cose ax%d,5e koet coarx ga4e4 Ceasoøs & Ae4 seuea
oudg¼:t A& sax attac¼ as recotA3fg
tauo&s ove xkro
w
4o4 od sh. iÀesce, aarhc caMù,c %s beeA ii\usxtonehkx scaQ be tev¼el, snee Goux au:x cR Gee Amuc,c coutxs (àh xhox¾xook cow wusx cnzoch %se spec,c_ ptvows a4% tecccò teCux a ,¼te_\ams
(a
u
% com's su¿y�254vg tcnicode4cr b |
each groud
. A9cmm troA quesnoa mu Eoc,ns atyeest * Açpe\\ass was aa\$auxo bd o452 case, od o»e ¼ïXaNcasG1box cod\e,s ách ¼¾¾ 8Jeg opÂwa
où o&he
ue 'veCàs© aMomacheess'' requùeeerax, ,,
Mies, case is M smáb
CeRe« a
de
p
5,uguoca,*%)e Me
a
s a,�541 ocàec
his Me 3%s3.7e má uns de.áeò oa*e
s
o *e coaxean oQ Ws ph ogteeeea-s?(% eucx s o '6a
hoMp).%oaewer,(x && aax axx«ch o e
o
e
a ee e x oc an ox¼c µ,agas o¼ tecA zo coachsisve\ ce e3
IA x¼
sv»¤ eoæ,$e q\ea ogeeeem(o&+cee
s3 ue e. anone¼c goud Ga,bux*g\1à asgeoaks
ehw*e gach«x r«*ec,xeak e s«pyx.
e
cs,: pagcqh o�570 'the''Atoyeax ¼< Ques
0,4 þ\
reno.vh,& 6e,×vA eux àec:Aes xo A
elose
e
e
es ixs \>ecause we cheCeakam% c\«às are eøacksm\$ teh\ tecocà,* cout, s¼Ah «vt«ch,k egcognoxe- poco as oC+e reco
xo te ocàeÊDe- o+ec cce is Seke\n¼eKn%4%k(Ra,shtr o¾)3(3.goo a{�040#d où
\ cSehá issusq oA tesi
et$ec c to4x Se souA oc growle_5e_ com,gde_
e mah cowx s
c
e
M oxxacheeA'c o CecoCÊe\\ee_,
/
AWELLÈ A9PEt4bK
Ndo
APPEMOI Eth,1 O tAC
G
,
,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2013
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPlRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BOBBY A. LATULIP, Appellant, v.
Case No. 5D13-430
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. /
Opinion filed July 19, 2013 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Hernando County,
Daniel B. Merritt, Sr., Judge.
Bobby A. Latulip, Clermont, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM.
Bobby A. LaTulip appeals from the(summary denial)of his seven-issue Rule 3.850 Motion for Postconviction Relief, filed after LaTulip entered what appears to have been a favorable negotiated plea to charges in two separate cases. In denying relief, the trial court described most of the claims as("facially insufficient,')which could lead a reader to conclude that the trial court simply identified pleading deficiencies such that
LaTulip should have been given an opportunity to amend his postconviction motion.
1 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007). However, the denial order identified no pleading deficiencies.
Rather,
e trial court addressed the @ of each claim,
explaining why LaTulip was not legally entitled to relief as to each. The trial court was correct in its analysis and denial of LaTulip's claims on the g e ts, and we affirm)-- Ño AFFIRMED. ORFINGER, LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.
2
