Hartley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hartley v. State

993 So. 2d 1187, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 17565, 2008 WL 4923003

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hartley v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 927 So. 2d 1030 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 19, 2008·No. No. 4D08-2562·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Hartley appeals the final order entered by the trial court summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief which raised four claims. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. We affirm the denial of claims one, three and four. However, in claim two, appellant has stated a sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel failed to make a legally sufficient motion for judgment of acquittal at his trial particularly on the charge of felony petit theft. We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; and Remanded.

TAYLOR, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Hartley appeals the final order entered by the trial court summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief which raised four claims. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. We affirm the denial of claims one, three and four. However, in claim two, appellant has stated a sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel failed to make a legally sufficient motion for judgment of acquittal at his trial particularly on the charge of felony petit theft. We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; and Remanded.

TAYLOR, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ„ concur.

Hartley v. State, 993 So. 2d 1187, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 17565, 2008 WL 4923003 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

993 So. 2d 1187 (Hartley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.