Birch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Birch v. State

961 So. 2d 1112, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 11955, 2007 WL 2212730

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2007

DocketNo. 5D07-1162

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 961 So. 2d 1112 (Birch 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

Birch v. State, 961 So. 2d 1112, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 11955, 2007 WL 2212730 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief based upon alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse because the record does not conclusively refute Appellant’s allegations.

Appellant alleges that the State offered to allow him to plead guilty to unlawful sale and delivery of cocaine in exchange for an agreed sentence of 18 months in prison. Appellant further alleges that he accepted this offer, communicated his acceptance of the offer to his trial counsel, but that his counsel did not inform the State that he had accepted the offer. As a result, Appellant contends that the State withdrew the offer and he subsequently was forced to accept a plea offer of five years in prison.

These allegations state a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. White v. State, 731 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Therefore, unless conclusively refuted by the record, Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

We therefore reverse the lower court’s order and remand this cause with instructions that the lower court either conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim or attach specific portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s allegations.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief based upon alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse because the record does not conclusively refute Appellant’s allegations.

Appellant alleges that the State offered to allow him to plead guilty to unlawful sale and delivery of cocaine in exchange for an agreed sentence of 18 months in prison. Appellant further alleges that he accepted this offer, communicated his acceptance of the offer to his trial counsel, but that his counsel did not inform the State that he had accepted the offer. As a result, Appellant contends that the State withdrew the offer and he subsequently was forced to accept a plea offer of five years in prison.

These allegations state a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. White v. State, 731 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Therefore, unless conclusively refuted by the record, Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

We therefore reverse the lower court’s order and remand this cause with instructions that the lower court either conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim or attach specific portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s allegations.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 So. 2d 1112, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 11955, 2007 WL 2212730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birch-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack