Ali v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ali v. State

918 So. 2d 986, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 113, 2006 WL 51138

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 2006

DocketNo. 4D04-3610

StatusPublished

This text of 918 So. 2d 986 (Ali 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

Ali v. State, 918 So. 2d 986, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 113, 2006 WL 51138 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse in part the trial court order denying appellant’s Motion for Relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The state properly concedes, and we agree, that appellant’s point B is facially sufficient, requiring remand for either an evidentiary hearing or attachment of those portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claim. As to points A and C, we affirm.

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse in part the trial court order denying appellant’s Motion for Relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The state properly concedes, and we agree, that appellant’s point B is facially sufficient, requiring remand for either an evidentiary hearing or attachment of those portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claim. As to points A and C, we affirm.

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

918 So. 2d 986, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 113, 2006 WL 51138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ali-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.