Cotton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cotton v. State

746 So. 2d 1158, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15678, 1999 WL 1062539

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 24, 1999

DocketNo. 99-2742

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 746 So. 2d 1158 (Cotton 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

Cotton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1158, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15678, 1999 WL 1062539 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a 247-page pro se motion for post-conviction relief raising approximately 12 different claims for post-conviction relief following his conviction and 30-year sentence for second degree murder. Appellant’s motion was verified and timely from the date that this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in Cotton v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1536, - So.2d -, 1998 WL 329441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). It raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct and other trial court error. The trial court summarily denied this motion without ordering a state response, without evidentiary hearing, and without attachment of portions of the trial court record.

“When a trial court summarily denies a motion for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record to refute the allegations, review is limited to determining whether, accepting the allegations as true, the motion shows the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Edwards v. State, 652 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We cannot conclude that this motion for post conviction relief shows that appellant is not entitled to relief on any of the multiple grounds raised, including the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court. Should the trial court [1159]*1159again conclude that the record conclusively establishes that appellant is entitled to no relief, it shall attach to its order those additional portions of the record which lead it to that conclusion. Otherwise, it shall hold an evidentiary hearing.

GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a 247-page pro se motion for post-conviction relief raising approximately 12 different claims for post-conviction relief following his conviction and 30-year sentence for second degree murder. Appellant’s motion was verified and timely from the date that this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in Cotton v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1536, - So.2d -, 1998 WL 329441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). It raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct and other trial court error. The trial court summarily denied this motion without ordering a state response, without evidentiary hearing, and without attachment of portions of the trial court record.

“When a trial court summarily denies a motion for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record to refute the allegations, review is limited to determining whether, accepting the allegations as true, the motion shows the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Edwards v. State, 652 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We cannot conclude that this motion for post conviction relief shows that appellant is not entitled to relief on any of the multiple grounds raised, including the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court. Should the trial court [1159]*1159again conclude that the record conclusively establishes that appellant is entitled to no relief, it shall attach to its order those additional portions of the record which lead it to that conclusion. Otherwise, it shall hold an evidentiary hearing.

GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

746 So. 2d 1158, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15678, 1999 WL 1062539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotton-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack