Cargile 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 EDDIE CARGILE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) ________________________________ ) Case No. 2D06-2455 Opinion filed September 29, 2006. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Chet A. Tharpe, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Our affirmance is without prejudice to whatever right Mr. Cargile may have to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. See Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2004). CASANUEVA, STRINGER, and VILLANTI, 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.