Fluker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fluker v. State

474 So. 2d 334, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1832, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14691

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 30, 1985·No. No. BE-44·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

The defendant, Bobby Lee Fluker, filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging that at his trial the state knowingly used perjured testimony and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief on the grounds that the basis for the motion could have been raised on direct appeal. The trial court erred because both bases can be proper grounds for post-conviction relief; however, the motion is facial[335]*335ly insufficient for failure to contain a statement of the facts relied upon in support of the motion as required by Rule 3.850(f).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

The defendant, Bobby Lee Fluker, filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging that at his trial the state knowingly used perjured testimony and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief on the grounds that the basis for the motion could have been raised on direct appeal. The trial court erred because both bases can be proper grounds for post-conviction relief; however, the motion is facial[335]*335ly insufficient for failure to contain a statement of the facts relied upon in support of the motion as required by Rule 3.850(f).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.

Fluker v. State, 474 So. 2d 334, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1832, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14691 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

474 So. 2d 334 (Fluker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related