Beier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beier v. State

684 So. 2d 306, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13061, 1996 WL 721566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 1996

DocketNo. 96-03263

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 684 So. 2d 306 (Beier 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

Beier v. State, 684 So. 2d 306, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13061, 1996 WL 721566 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Richard Beier, appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We determine that only one of the appellant’s claims has merit. Beier has made a facially sufficient claim that his plea was involuntary based upon misinformation from his attorney.

This court ruled in Hoch v. State, 679 So.2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), that a broad question placed* to the defendant regarding promises made to him would not foreclose postconviction relief founded upon misinformation by the defendant’s attorney. We remand for the trial court to determine whether Beier’s plea was involuntary due to his attorney’s misrepresentations about how much time Beier would actually serve in prison.

Appellant must seek review of any subsequent order of the trial court within thirty days.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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