Gallo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gallo v. State

691 So. 2d 1184, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4204, 1997 WL 194459

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3792

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 691 So. 2d 1184 (Gallo 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

Gallo v. State, 691 So. 2d 1184, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4204, 1997 WL 194459 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary plea induced by promises of counsel regarding control release date and reduced probationary sentencing, and a claim of violation of double jeopardy. Appellant’s claim of violation of double jeopardy appears to have been properly rejected by the trial court. See United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996); Chillington v. State, 682 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); State v. Powelson, 680 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). His claims of ineffective assistance of counsel fail to satisfy the elements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). However, his claim of involuntary plea based on promises of counsel does rise to the level of legal sufficiency, and was not refuted by the portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996).

Therefore, we reverse and remand for attachment of portions of the record or an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary plea induced by promises of counsel regarding control release date and reduced probationary sentencing, and a claim of violation of double jeopardy. Appellant’s claim of violation of double jeopardy appears to have been properly rejected by the trial court. See United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996); Chillington v. State, 682 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); State v. Powelson, 680 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). His claims of ineffective assistance of counsel fail to satisfy the elements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). However, his claim of involuntary plea based on promises of counsel does rise to the level of legal sufficiency, and was not refuted by the portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996).

Therefore, we reverse and remand for attachment of portions of the record or an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 1184, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4204, 1997 WL 194459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallo-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack