Gilyard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gilyard v. State

872 So. 2d 924, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2927, 2004 WL 438563

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-2477

StatusPublished

This text of 872 So. 2d 924 (Gilyard 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

Gilyard v. State, 872 So. 2d 924, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2927, 2004 WL 438563 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Lamontaque Gilyard, appeals the denial of various postconviction claims. We affirm without discussion all but one claim. In appellant’s second claim, he alleges his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file a legally sufficient motion for a new trial. The trial court failed to address this claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim, or for an evidentiary hearing. See Parker v. Dugger, 660 So.2d 1386, 1389 (Fla.1995) (“We will not rule upon the merits of those claims when the trial court never reached the merits below”).

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Lamontaque Gilyard, appeals the denial of various postconviction claims. We affirm without discussion all but one claim. In appellant’s second claim, he alleges his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file a legally sufficient motion for a new trial. The trial court failed to address this claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim, or for an evidentiary hearing. See Parker v. Dugger, 660 So.2d 1386, 1389 (Fla.1995) (“We will not rule upon the merits of those claims when the trial court never reached the merits below”).

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 So. 2d 924, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2927, 2004 WL 438563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilyard-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack