Legal Opinion

Muram v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 7, 2007No. 3D06-1863PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the denial of Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief. The issue of whether or not the defendant is entitled to DNA testing has previously been addressed by this Court. See Muram, v. State, 950 So.2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). We also affirm the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s request for a free trial transcript. See Roesch v. State, 633 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993) (indigent inmates are not entitled to records free-of-charge); Yanke v. State, 588 So.2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (no *395right to free transcript for preparation of postconviction motion).

Affirmed.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Roesch v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
  2. Yanke v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  3. MR v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cuesta v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007
  2. William Sims v. State of FloridaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2025