Bodden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bodden v. State

766 So. 2d 416, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10765, 2000 WL 1190789

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-3685

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 766 So. 2d 416 (Bodden 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

Bodden v. State, 766 So. 2d 416, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10765, 2000 WL 1190789 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We partially reverse an order summarily denying ’ Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State agrees, in its response to this court’s order to show cause with respect to the first and second claims of Appellant’s first ground for relief, both based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, that the record does not conclusively show that Appellant is not entitled to relief on those claims.

[417]*417Appellant attacks Ms guilty plea to a charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under the age of sixteen years. We note that a voluntary plea “cuts off inquiry into all that precedes it,” barring the defendant from contesting events that happened before the plea. Stano v. State, 520 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla.1988); accord Dean v. State, 580 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Nevertheless, here, the allegations are intertwined with Appellant’s challenges to the voluntariness of his plea. The summary order of denial includes no excerpts from the record establishing that the plea was voluntary.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the summary denial of the first two claims of Appellant’s first ground for relief insofar as they challenge the voluntariness of the plea. We affirm the remaining claims of that ground and the other two grounds for relief without discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing or attachments of portions of the record demonstrative that Appellant is not entitled to relief.

STONE, POLEN, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We partially reverse an order summarily denying ’ Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State agrees, in its response to this court’s order to show cause with respect to the first and second claims of Appellant’s first ground for relief, both based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, that the record does not conclusively show that Appellant is not entitled to relief on those claims.

[417]*417Appellant attacks Ms guilty plea to a charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under the age of sixteen years. We note that a voluntary plea “cuts off inquiry into all that precedes it,” barring the defendant from contesting events that happened before the plea. Stano v. State, 520 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla.1988); accord Dean v. State, 580 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Nevertheless, here, the allegations are intertwined with Appellant’s challenges to the voluntariness of his plea. The summary order of denial includes no excerpts from the record establishing that the plea was voluntary.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the summary denial of the first two claims of Appellant’s first ground for relief insofar as they challenge the voluntariness of the plea. We affirm the remaining claims of that ground and the other two grounds for relief without discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing or attachments of portions of the record demonstrative that Appellant is not entitled to relief.

STONE, POLEN, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 So. 2d 416, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10765, 2000 WL 1190789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bodden-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack