Grogin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grogin v. State

824 So. 2d 984, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12012, 2002 WL 1906500

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-5079

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 824 So. 2d 984 (Grogin 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

Grogin v. State, 824 So. 2d 984, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12012, 2002 WL 1906500 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the sentence he would receive in connection with his open plea. The motion is legally insufficient because appellant has not alleged that he would not have entered the plea had he been properly informed. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Roldan v. State, 695 So.2d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the sentence he would receive in connection with his open plea. The motion is legally insufficient because appellant has not alleged that he would not have entered the plea had he been properly informed. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Roldan v. State, 695 So.2d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 So. 2d 984, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12012, 2002 WL 1906500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grogin-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack