Burkett v. State
This text of 783 So. 2d 333 (Burkett 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.
Opinions
We reverse and remand this case for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the appellant that voluntary intoxication was a defense to his robbery charges and the burglary charge in case number 98-1940G. See Richardson v. State, 723 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Kiser v. State, 678 So.2d 859, 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See also Thomas v. State, 734 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(reversing for further proceedings on voluntary intoxication claim even though the appellant pled guilty and indicated in a plea agreement he was satisfied with defense counsel’s performance).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
783 So. 2d 333, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5242, 2001 WL 395332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkett-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.