Fite v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fite v. State

816 So. 2d 787, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6528, 2002 WL 971341

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-3663

StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 787 (Fite 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

Fite v. State, 816 So. 2d 787, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6528, 2002 WL 971341 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the order by which the trial court summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The trial court determined that all of the appellant’s claims were facially insufficient, conclusively refuted by the record, or otherwise without merit. We conclude, however, that the court erred by summarily denying one of the appellant’s claims. The appellant asserted that the prosecution withheld an exculpatory statement made by the victim, and that he never would have entered a plea had this statement been disclosed. As the appellee acknowledges, the appellant’s allegations here provide a sufficient basis to support a finding that his plea was not voluntarily or intelligently entered, and the portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute this claim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of this claim and remand this case to the trial court for further consideration of the claim.

The order is otherwise affirmed.

ALLEN, C.J., MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the order by which the trial court summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The trial court determined that all of the appellant’s claims were facially insufficient, conclusively refuted by the record, or otherwise without merit. We conclude, however, that the court erred by summarily denying one of the appellant’s claims. The appellant asserted that the prosecution withheld an exculpatory statement made by the victim, and that he never would have entered a plea had this statement been disclosed. As the appellee acknowledges, the appellant’s allegations here provide a sufficient basis to support a finding that his plea was not voluntarily or intelligently entered, and the portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute this claim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of this claim and remand this case to the trial court for further consideration of the claim.

The order is otherwise affirmed.

ALLEN, C.J., MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 787, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6528, 2002 WL 971341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fite-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.