Colon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colon v. State

752 So. 2d 1250, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2292, 2000 WL 257170

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-2326

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 1250 (Colon 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

Colon v. State, 752 So. 2d 1250, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2292, 2000 WL 257170 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion reversing a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, we reversed and remanded on the authority of State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996) and ordered the trial court to either attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the claim that appellant’s plea was involuntary based on his counsel’s misadvice, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue. On remand, the state, which had conceded the applicability of Leroux on appeal, filed a second response, basically ignoring Leroux. It attached to its pleading the plea colloquy which had been attached to the original order summarily denying relief. The trial court again denied the motion for postconviction relief, attaching the state’s response with the plea colloquy.

The state’s response simply referred to the plea colloquy which we previously held was insufficient to conclusively refute the claim in the motion. Thus, we conclude that our mandate has not been complied with, and we therefore order an evidentia-ry hearing on the issue.

WARNER, C.J., DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion reversing a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, we reversed and remanded on the authority of State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996) and ordered the trial court to either attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the claim that appellant’s plea was involuntary based on his counsel’s misadvice, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue. On remand, the state, which had conceded the applicability of Leroux on appeal, filed a second response, basically ignoring Leroux. It attached to its pleading the plea colloquy which had been attached to the original order summarily denying relief. The trial court again denied the motion for postconviction relief, attaching the state’s response with the plea colloquy.

The state’s response simply referred to the plea colloquy which we previously held was insufficient to conclusively refute the claim in the motion. Thus, we conclude that our mandate has not been complied with, and we therefore order an evidentia-ry hearing on the issue.

WARNER, C.J., DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 1250, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2292, 2000 WL 257170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colon-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack