Hardy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hardy v. State

667 So. 2d 956, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1013, 1996 WL 60511

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1615

StatusPublished

This text of 667 So. 2d 956 (Hardy 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

Hardy v. State, 667 So. 2d 956, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1013, 1996 WL 60511 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion.. We affirm without comment as to grounds 1, 3 and 4. However, as to ground 2 (involving allegations that Appellant’s counsel was ineffective for not relaying certain plea offers from the prosecutor), we reverse and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or record attachments showing conclusively that Appellant is entitled to no relief. See Wilson v. State, 647 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). On remand, we further direct the trial court to address grounds 5 through 8 of Appellant’s 3.850 motion, as it failed to do so in the order on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion.. We affirm without comment as to grounds 1, 3 and 4. However, as to ground 2 (involving allegations that Appellant’s counsel was ineffective for not relaying certain plea offers from the prosecutor), we reverse and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or record attachments showing conclusively that Appellant is entitled to no relief. See Wilson v. State, 647 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). On remand, we further direct the trial court to address grounds 5 through 8 of Appellant’s 3.850 motion, as it failed to do so in the order on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 So. 2d 956, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1013, 1996 WL 60511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack