Adkison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adkison v. State

829 So. 2d 988, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16131, 2002 WL 31478142

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 2002

DocketNo. 1D02-1897

StatusPublished

This text of 829 So. 2d 988 (Adkison 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

Adkison v. State, 829 So. 2d 988, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16131, 2002 WL 31478142 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for posteon-viction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he claimed that he was not afforded an opportunity to withdraw a plea that he had entered to charges of grand theft auto, even after the trial court determined that it would be unable to live up to the plea agreement. Because the trial court’s attachments do not conclusively establish that Appellant was allowed a chance to withdraw his plea as to the grand theft auto charges, we reverse the summary denial of Appellant’s claim, and remand with instructions to the trial court to either attach record excerpts that conclusively [989]*989establish that Appellant is not entitled to relief, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Janney v. State, 599 So.2d 731, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ERVIN, BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for posteon-viction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he claimed that he was not afforded an opportunity to withdraw a plea that he had entered to charges of grand theft auto, even after the trial court determined that it would be unable to live up to the plea agreement. Because the trial court’s attachments do not conclusively establish that Appellant was allowed a chance to withdraw his plea as to the grand theft auto charges, we reverse the summary denial of Appellant’s claim, and remand with instructions to the trial court to either attach record excerpts that conclusively [989]*989establish that Appellant is not entitled to relief, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Janney v. State, 599 So.2d 731, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ERVIN, BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

829 So. 2d 988, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16131, 2002 WL 31478142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkison-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack