Adcock v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GORDON W. ADCOCK, ) Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D03-2997 Opinion filed December 10, 2003. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Harry M. Rapkin, Judge. PER CURIAM. Gordon W. Adcock challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it was facially insufficient. Our affirmance of the trial court s order is without prejudice to any right Adcock might have to file a facially sufficient motion raising the same claim within sixty days from the issuance of the mandate in this case. Affirmed. WHATLEY, SALCINES, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.