Bland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bland v. State

25 So. 3d 600, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19499, 2009 WL 4800351

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 2009

Docket1D09-4080

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 So. 3d 600 (Bland 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

Bland v. State, 25 So. 3d 600, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19499, 2009 WL 4800351 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, in which he raises several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and asserts that his plea was involuntarily entered. The trial court denied the motion because the appellant had entered a plea. The court did not attach any portion of the record that conclusively refuted the appellant’s claims, nor did it hold an evidentiary hearing.

We reverse and remand the order for the trial court to either attach the relevant portions of the record that conclusively refute the appellant’s claims, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Yeager v. State, 514 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (reversing a claim of an involuntary plea where the court failed to attach any record portions refuting the claim); compare Knowles v. State, 582 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (affirming where the attached plea agreement and colloquy refuted the claim of an involuntary plea).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KAHN, BENTON, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, in which he raises several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and asserts that his plea was involuntarily entered. The trial court denied the motion because the appellant had entered a plea. The court did not attach any portion of the record that conclusively refuted the appellant’s claims, nor did it hold an evidentiary hearing.

We reverse and remand the order for the trial court to either attach the relevant portions of the record that conclusively refute the appellant’s claims, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Yeager v. State, 514 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (reversing a claim of an involuntary plea where the court failed to attach any record portions refuting the claim); compare Knowles v. State, 582 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (affirming where the attached plea agreement and colloquy refuted the claim of an involuntary plea).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KAHN, BENTON, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 So. 3d 600, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19499, 2009 WL 4800351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bland-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack