Cobb v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cobb v. State

752 So. 2d 1259, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2622, 2000 WL 266350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-2829

StatusPublished

This text of 752 So. 2d 1259 (Cobb 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

Cobb v. State, 752 So. 2d 1259, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2622, 2000 WL 266350 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his amended motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. That motion made three claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an eviden-tiary hearing on the first of those claims, the trial court denied the motion in its entirety. We affirm the denial of the first claim. However, as the state concedes, it appears that the trial court inadvertently neglected to consider the other two claims, which are facially sufficient. Accordingly, as to those claims, we reverse and remand. Should the trial court determine that those claims are conclusively refuted by the record, it shall attach to its order denying relief those portions of the record which show that there is no entitlement to relief; otherwise, it shall hold a hearing.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his amended motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. That motion made three claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an eviden-tiary hearing on the first of those claims, the trial court denied the motion in its entirety. We affirm the denial of the first claim. However, as the state concedes, it appears that the trial court inadvertently neglected to consider the other two claims, which are facially sufficient. Accordingly, as to those claims, we reverse and remand. Should the trial court determine that those claims are conclusively refuted by the record, it shall attach to its order denying relief those portions of the record which show that there is no entitlement to relief; otherwise, it shall hold a hearing.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH, JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 1259, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2622, 2000 WL 266350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.