Dart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dart v. State

415 So. 2d 846, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20339

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1982

DocketNo. AL-228

StatusPublished

This text of 415 So. 2d 846 (Dart 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

Dart v. State, 415 So. 2d 846, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20339 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, appellant contends that the trial court erred in adjudicating him guilty of and sentencing him for the crimes of burglary with intent to commit assault and sexual battery. Depending upon the accusatory pleadings and the evidence presented at trial, the charge of sexual battery may or may not be a lesser-included offense of burglary while committing an assault. See, e.g., McElveen v. State, 415 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982). Here, however, it is impossible to determine the merits of appellant’s contentions without the aid of, at the very least, the charging instrument, and possibly portions of the record. Compare Watkins v. State, 413 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for attachment of those portions of the record which effectively refute appellant’s claim or for an evidentiary hearing upon his allegations.

McCORD, MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, appellant contends that the trial court erred in adjudicating him guilty of and sentencing him for the crimes of burglary with intent to commit assault and sexual battery. Depending upon the accusatory pleadings and the evidence presented at trial, the charge of sexual battery may or may not be a lesser-included offense of burglary while committing an assault. See, e.g., McElveen v. State, 415 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982). Here, however, it is impossible to determine the merits of appellant’s contentions without the aid of, at the very least, the charging instrument, and possibly portions of the record. Compare Watkins v. State, 413 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for attachment of those portions of the record which effectively refute appellant’s claim or for an evidentiary hearing upon his allegations.

McCORD, MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 So. 2d 846, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dart-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack