George v. State

624 So. 2d 419, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10107, 1993 WL 394663
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in George v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 577 So. 2d 996
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 8, 1993·No. No. 93-03138·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Floyd Mitchell George appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

George raises several claims in his motion, only one of which has merit. George contends that he was taking psychotropic medication at the time he entered his plea of nolo contendere and that defense counsel knew about it. George further claims ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel advised George to respond in the negative if asked by the judge at the plea hearing whether he was on medication. If George’s claim is true, he may be entitled to relief. See Harrison v. State, 562 So.2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Because the trial judge’s order of denial and record attached do not refute George’s claim, we reverse and remand on this point only. On remand, the trial court may again deny the relief requested on this point and attach to its order of denial that portion of the record refuting this claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. The order of denial is otherwise affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

George v. State, 624 So. 2d 419, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 10107, 1993 WL 394663 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

624 So. 2d 419 (George v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harrison v. State
562 So. 2d 827 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)