Cunningham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cunningham v. State

600 So. 2d 52, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7638, 1992 WL 147150

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 1992

DocketNo. 92-0538

StatusPublished

This text of 600 So. 2d 52 (Cunningham 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

Cunningham v. State, 600 So. 2d 52, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7638, 1992 WL 147150 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Three grounds raised by appellant in the motion were legally sufficient, and therefore the motion should not have been summarily denied. See Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

[53]*53Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record conclusively showing that appellant is not entitled to relief on the following: (1) whether defense counsel coerced appellant into pleading guilty, (2) whether appellant failed to understand the consequences of his plea due to his mental condition, and (3) whether the trial court failed to advise appellant of the maximum possible penalty he faced.

LETTS, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Three grounds raised by appellant in the motion were legally sufficient, and therefore the motion should not have been summarily denied. See Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

[53]*53Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record conclusively showing that appellant is not entitled to relief on the following: (1) whether defense counsel coerced appellant into pleading guilty, (2) whether appellant failed to understand the consequences of his plea due to his mental condition, and (3) whether the trial court failed to advise appellant of the maximum possible penalty he faced.

LETTS, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 So. 2d 52, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7638, 1992 WL 147150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack