Don E. Cioeta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Don E. Cioeta v. State

204 So. 3d 156, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17380

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 2016

Docket5D16-562

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 So. 3d 156 (Don E. Cioeta 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

Don E. Cioeta v. State, 204 So. 3d 156, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17380 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Don Cioeta, seeks review of the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to all claims except claims two and seven. In claim two, Cioeta contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress Cioeta’s statements to the police. In claim seven, Cioeta argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements. Because these two claims are not refuted by the record, it was error for the trial court to summarily deny them. Therefore, we reverse that part of the order under review denying these two claims and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims.

*157 AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Don Cioeta, seeks review of the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to all claims except claims two and seven. In claim two, Cioeta contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress Cioeta’s statements to the police. In claim seven, Cioeta argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements. Because these two claims are not refuted by the record, it was error for the trial court to summarily deny them. Therefore, we reverse that part of the order under review denying these two claims and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims.

*157 AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 3d 156, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/don-e-cioeta-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack