Hinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hinson v. State

220 So. 3d 1242, 2017 WL 2364594, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7841

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-2638

StatusPublished

This text of 220 So. 3d 1242 (Hinson 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

Hinson v. State, 220 So. 3d 1242, 2017 WL 2364594, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7841 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. One of Appellant’s claims is that he involuntarily entered his plea out of a well-founded fear that his counsel would be unprepared at trial. The trial court observed that it appeared from the record that counsel was [1243]*1243prepared for trial, but the court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s state of preparation or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting this argument. Because this claim is colorable and not conclusively refuted by the attachments to the order, we reverse the denial of this claim and remand for further consideration of this claim only. E.g., Green v. State, 827 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Lanier v. State, 789 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), We otherwise affirm the order.

REVERSED in part arid REMANDED.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. One of Appellant’s claims is that he involuntarily entered his plea out of a well-founded fear that his counsel would be unprepared at trial. The trial court observed that it appeared from the record that counsel was [1243]*1243prepared for trial, but the court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s state of preparation or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting this argument. Because this claim is colorable and not conclusively refuted by the attachments to the order, we reverse the denial of this claim and remand for further consideration of this claim only. E.g., Green v. State, 827 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Lanier v. State, 789 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), We otherwise affirm the order.

REVERSED in part arid REMANDED.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 So. 3d 1242, 2017 WL 2364594, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinson-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack