Houck v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Houck v. State

740 So. 2d 1252, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11840, 1999 WL 682877

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2290

StatusPublished

This text of 740 So. 2d 1252 (Houck 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

Houck v. State, 740 So. 2d 1252, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11840, 1999 WL 682877 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James N. Houck alleged twenty separate grounds for relief in a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion without attaching portions of the record conclusively refuting all allegations and we reversed and remanded for portions of the record to be attached, or for an evidentiary hearing to be held. See Houck v. State, 704 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). On remand the trial court again denied the motion and attached portions of the record.

We affirm the denial of relief on nineteen grounds on the basis of the attached record or the facial insufficiency of the alleged grounds. However the trial court [1253]*1253abused its discretion in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing on the allegation that counsel failed to communicate offers for plea agreements. We find this allegation sufficient to require an eviden-tiary hearing to determine if any plea offer was made that court-appointed counsel faded to communicate to Mr. Houck. See Graham v. State, 659 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Reversed and remanded.

ERVIN and BENTON, JJ„ CONCUR; BOOTH, J., DISSENTS.

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

PER CURIAM.

James N. Houck alleged twenty separate grounds for relief in a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion without attaching portions of the record conclusively refuting all allegations and we reversed and remanded for portions of the record to be attached, or for an evidentiary hearing to be held. See Houck v. State, 704 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). On remand the trial court again denied the motion and attached portions of the record.

We affirm the denial of relief on nineteen grounds on the basis of the attached record or the facial insufficiency of the alleged grounds. However the trial court [1253]*1253abused its discretion in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing on the allegation that counsel failed to communicate offers for plea agreements. We find this allegation sufficient to require an eviden-tiary hearing to determine if any plea offer was made that court-appointed counsel faded to communicate to Mr. Houck. See Graham v. State, 659 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

Reversed and remanded.

ERVIN and BENTON, JJ„ CONCUR; BOOTH, J., DISSENTS.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 So. 2d 1252, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11840, 1999 WL 682877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houck-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack