Howze v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howze v. State

660 So. 2d 1183, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10467, 1995 WL 583720

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 1995

DocketNo. 95-03444

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 660 So. 2d 1183 (Howze 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

Howze v. State, 660 So. 2d 1183, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10467, 1995 WL 583720 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Howze timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Howze’s motion raised two grounds. First, Howze claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel who allegedly failed to inform Howze of the consequences of his plea of no contest and failed to appeal from the plea. Howze asserts that his attorney promised that his plea bargain sentences in this case would run concurrently with sentences in another case, which Howze states did not happen. Second, Howze alleges trial court error for imposing separate sentences for two crimes which were the result of a single act.

Because there are no attachments to the trial court’s order, we are compelled to reverse the trial court’s order denying Howze’s motion. On remand,- the trial court either may conduct an evidentiary hearing or again deny Howze’s motion and attach portions of the record which conclusively refute Howze’s claims.

Reversed and remanded.

PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Howze timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Howze’s motion raised two grounds. First, Howze claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel who allegedly failed to inform Howze of the consequences of his plea of no contest and failed to appeal from the plea. Howze asserts that his attorney promised that his plea bargain sentences in this case would run concurrently with sentences in another case, which Howze states did not happen. Second, Howze alleges trial court error for imposing separate sentences for two crimes which were the result of a single act.

Because there are no attachments to the trial court’s order, we are compelled to reverse the trial court’s order denying Howze’s motion. On remand,- the trial court either may conduct an evidentiary hearing or again deny Howze’s motion and attach portions of the record which conclusively refute Howze’s claims.

Reversed and remanded.

PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 So. 2d 1183, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10467, 1995 WL 583720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howze-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack