Abbott v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Abbott v. State

702 So. 2d 626, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14583, 1997 WL 775469

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1997

DocketNo. 97-2545

StatusPublished

This text of 702 So. 2d 626 (Abbott v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abbott v. State, 702 So. 2d 626, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14583, 1997 WL 775469 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying, as facially insufficient, a motion requesting postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which presented some 20 issues. We conclude that appellant’s claim (his issue ten) that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to call specific witnesses who would have refuted a portion of the state’s ease, thereby establishing a viable defense, was facially sufficient. See, e.g., Highsmith v. State, 617 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, as to that claim only, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s order as to all of the other claims.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying, as facially insufficient, a motion requesting postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which presented some 20 issues. We conclude that appellant’s claim (his issue ten) that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to call specific witnesses who would have refuted a portion of the state’s ease, thereby establishing a viable defense, was facially sufficient. See, e.g., Highsmith v. State, 617 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, as to that claim only, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s order as to all of the other claims.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 626, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14583, 1997 WL 775469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbott-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack