Allen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allen v. State

482 So. 2d 529, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 299, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6116

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 1986

DocketNo. BH-328

StatusPublished

This text of 482 So. 2d 529 (Allen 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

Allen v. State, 482 So. 2d 529, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 299, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6116 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in that his court appointed attorney failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation. He also alleges that counsel deliberately sabotaged his defense by conceding his [530]*530guilt at trial. The court summarily denied the motion, stating that it failed “to allege a factual basis upon which relief can be granted.” However, no portion of the transcript or record has been attached to the lower court’s order in support of its denial of appellant’s motion. Summary denial of a facially sufficient motion for post conviction relief is improper unless the court attaches to its order the portions of the record refuting the allegations.

The lower court’s order is reversed, and the case is remanded so that the court may either attach portions of the record conclusively showing appellant is entitled to no relief or hold an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ZEHMER, J., concurs. BARFIELD, J., dissents without opinion.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in that his court appointed attorney failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation. He also alleges that counsel deliberately sabotaged his defense by conceding his [530]*530guilt at trial. The court summarily denied the motion, stating that it failed “to allege a factual basis upon which relief can be granted.” However, no portion of the transcript or record has been attached to the lower court’s order in support of its denial of appellant’s motion. Summary denial of a facially sufficient motion for post conviction relief is improper unless the court attaches to its order the portions of the record refuting the allegations.

The lower court’s order is reversed, and the case is remanded so that the court may either attach portions of the record conclusively showing appellant is entitled to no relief or hold an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ZEHMER, J., concurs. BARFIELD, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 So. 2d 529, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 299, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.