Filed: Dec. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 23, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D15-915 Lower Tribunal No. 07-39012 _ Patrick Lively, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat, Judge. Patrick Lively, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. Before WELLS, FERNANDEZ
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 23, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D15-915 Lower Tribunal No. 07-39012 _ Patrick Lively, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat, Judge. Patrick Lively, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. Before WELLS, FERNANDEZ a..
More
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 23, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D15-915 Lower Tribunal No. 07-39012 ________________ Patrick Lively, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat, Judge. Patrick Lively, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. Before WELLS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ. WELLS, Judge. Patrick Lively appeals from an order denying his pro se motion, made within two years after his conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court, to dismiss the information against him. While not included in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, we treat the motion to dismiss as such because there is no other mechanism by which the court below, and thus this court, could address it. Treating it as such, we affirm the order on appeal denying Lively’s motion. 2
