Fisher v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fisher v. State

755 So. 2d 189, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4269, 2000 WL 368662

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fisher v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 697 So. 2d 1291 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 2000·No. No. 3D00-143·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the denial of his 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The appellant argues that he was not given written notice, either at the time of or prior to the entry of his plea, of the state’s intent to seek habitual offender status. The state concedes and we agree that the trial judge erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing because the record does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the denial of his 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The appellant argues that he was not given written notice, either at the time of or prior to the entry of his plea, of the state’s intent to seek habitual offender status. The state concedes and we agree that the trial judge erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing because the record does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim.

Reversed.

Fisher v. State, 755 So. 2d 189, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4269, 2000 WL 368662 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

755 So. 2d 189 (Fisher v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.