Corona v. State

911 So. 2d 274, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15470, 2005 WL 2396645
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Corona v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 929 So. 2d 588
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 30, 2005·No. No. 5D05-1687·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm except as to ground 9 of Appellant’s motion, which relates to Appellant’s assertion that he received a vindictive sentence. As the State concedes on appeal, the trial court failed to attach portions of the transcript that conclusively negate this allegation. On remand, the court shall either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim in ground 9, or hold an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

PETERSON, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

Corona v. State, 911 So. 2d 274, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15470, 2005 WL 2396645 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

911 So. 2d 274 (Corona v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.