Herring v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Herring v. State

827 So. 2d 389, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14666, 2002 WL 31268867

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 2002

DocketNo. 2D02-2428

StatusPublished

This text of 827 So. 2d 389 (Herring 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

Herring v. State, 827 So. 2d 389, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14666, 2002 WL 31268867 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Michael E. Herring appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Herring’s motion contained seven issues that were all summarily denied by the trial court. We affirm six of these issues without comment and reverse on the remaining issue: whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey a plea offer. The trial court attached portions of the record that do not conclusively refute this issue. Instead, the attachments establish a factual dispute which must be resolved in an evi-dentiary hearing. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue only.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for evidentiary hearing.

FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Michael E. Herring appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Herring’s motion contained seven issues that were all summarily denied by the trial court. We affirm six of these issues without comment and reverse on the remaining issue: whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey a plea offer. The trial court attached portions of the record that do not conclusively refute this issue. Instead, the attachments establish a factual dispute which must be resolved in an evi-dentiary hearing. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue only.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for evidentiary hearing.

FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 So. 2d 389, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 14666, 2002 WL 31268867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herring-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.