Melton v. State

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s filing a legally sufficient motion at the conclusion of his appeal. See Catis v. State, 741 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 735 So.2d 1284 (1999)(citing Vento v. State, 621 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), 3.850 motion legally insufficient where defendant failed to provide sufficient facts supporting his claim of ineffectiveness). STONE, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.