Burgess v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burgess v. State

935 So. 2d 119, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13310, 2006 WL 2265229

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 2006

DocketNo. 4D06-1368

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 935 So. 2d 119 (Burgess 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

Burgess v. State, 935 So. 2d 119, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13310, 2006 WL 2265229 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Willie T. Burgess, appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for failing to move to suppress his confession made to police after he was given defective Miranda1 warnings. In comparable cases, we have held that such a claim is legally sufficient. See Anthony v. State, 927 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Martelus v. State, 924 So.2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Stancle v. State, 917 So.2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We therefore reverse and remand either for the attachment of portions of the record con[120]*120clusively refuting the claim or for an evi-dentiary hearing.

Reversed and Remanded.

FARMER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Willie T. Burgess, appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for failing to move to suppress his confession made to police after he was given defective Miranda1 warnings. In comparable cases, we have held that such a claim is legally sufficient. See Anthony v. State, 927 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Martelus v. State, 924 So.2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Stancle v. State, 917 So.2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We therefore reverse and remand either for the attachment of portions of the record con[120]*120clusively refuting the claim or for an evi-dentiary hearing.

Reversed and Remanded.

FARMER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

935 So. 2d 119, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13310, 2006 WL 2265229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack