Goodman v. State

243 So. 3d 530
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 25, 2018·No. Nos. 1D16–5248; 1D16–5249·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

*531AFFIRMED . See Sheppard v. State , 17 So.3d 275, 286-87 (Fla. 2009) (agreeing that a trial court may strike pro se rule 3.170(l ) motion as a nullity unless the motion "contains specific allegations that give rise to an adversarial relationship, such as misadvice, affirmative misrepresentations, or coercion that led to the entry of the plea"); Echeverria v. State , 33 So.3d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that a defendant's "broad, general allegations of ineffectiveness of his counsel do not indicate misadvice, coercion, or misrepresentation that would require a hearing under Sheppard .").

Wolf, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.

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

Goodman v. State, 243 So. 3d 530 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

243 So. 3d 530 (Goodman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sheppard v. State
17 So. 3d 275 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
Echeverria v. State
33 So. 3d 802 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)