Hubbard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hubbard v. State

631 So. 2d 352, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 610, 1994 WL 28854

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2490

StatusPublished

This text of 631 So. 2d 352 (Hubbard 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

Hubbard v. State, 631 So. 2d 352, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 610, 1994 WL 28854 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. We agree with the lower court’s denial on grounds I and III; however, we disagree as to ground II.

Appellant’s initial motion alleges that he advised counsel of his desire to appeal but that he had need of appointed counsel. He alleges, and the record reflects, that on November 12, 1991, the court entered its order declaring appellant to be insolvent and appointing the Office of the Public Defender to represent the appellant. The record further reflects that the notice of appeal, which was filed on November 15, 1991, was dated November 13, 1991. November 13, 1991 was the last day on which an appeal could have been timely filed. Appellant further alleged that “Although Counsel informed Petitioner that he would file said notice of appeal, and had it recorded as being done on the 13th day of November, 1991, the District Court of the Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal in its Order dated December 30, 1992.” These allegations are sufficient to entitle appellant to an evidentiary hearing. Joseph v. State, 451 So.2d 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

W. SHARP, J., concurs. GOSHORN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. We agree with the lower court’s denial on grounds I and III; however, we disagree as to ground II.

Appellant’s initial motion alleges that he advised counsel of his desire to appeal but that he had need of appointed counsel. He alleges, and the record reflects, that on November 12, 1991, the court entered its order declaring appellant to be insolvent and appointing the Office of the Public Defender to represent the appellant. The record further reflects that the notice of appeal, which was filed on November 15, 1991, was dated November 13, 1991. November 13, 1991 was the last day on which an appeal could have been timely filed. Appellant further alleged that “Although Counsel informed Petitioner that he would file said notice of appeal, and had it recorded as being done on the 13th day of November, 1991, the District Court of the Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal in its Order dated December 30, 1992.” These allegations are sufficient to entitle appellant to an evidentiary hearing. Joseph v. State, 451 So.2d 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

W. SHARP, J., concurs. GOSHORN, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 So. 2d 352, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 610, 1994 WL 28854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbard-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack