Curtis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Curtis v. State

689 So. 2d 423, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2338, 1997 WL 107276

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 12, 1997·No. No. 96-4111·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse only with respect to appellant’s claim in his rule 3.850 motion that trial counsel failed to properly advise him that if he testified at trial, the jury would learn of his prior felony convictions. See generally Hicks v. State, 666 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The case is remanded for either attachment of portions of the file and records conclusively showing appellant was not entitled to relief, or for an evidentiary hearing concerning appellant’s decision to testify in light of the said failure.

As to all other grounds alleged, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial.

[424] AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

WARNER, PARIENTE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse only with respect to appellant’s claim in his rule 3.850 motion that trial counsel failed to properly advise him that if he testified at trial, the jury would learn of his prior felony convictions. See generally Hicks v. State, 666 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The case is remanded for either attachment of portions of the file and records conclusively showing appellant was not entitled to relief, or for an evidentiary hearing concerning appellant’s decision to testify in light of the said failure.

As to all other grounds alleged, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial.

[424] AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

WARNER, PARIENTE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Curtis v. State, 689 So. 2d 423, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2338, 1997 WL 107276 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

689 So. 2d 423 (Curtis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related