James v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

James v. State

807 So. 2d 732, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1351, 2002 WL 205816

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-3376

StatusPublished

This text of 807 So. 2d 732 (James 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

James v. State, 807 So. 2d 732, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1351, 2002 WL 205816 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the summary denial of the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to strike for cause a juror who admitted that he was related to appellant because, contrary to the trial court’s holding, such a claim is facially sufficient and may be raised by a rule 3.850 motion. See, e.g., Chattin v. State, 800 So.2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). On remand, should the trial court again deny this claim, it shall attach to its order portions of the record sufficient conclusive[733]*733ly to refute it; otherwise, it shall hold a hearing on the claim. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ. and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the summary denial of the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to strike for cause a juror who admitted that he was related to appellant because, contrary to the trial court’s holding, such a claim is facially sufficient and may be raised by a rule 3.850 motion. See, e.g., Chattin v. State, 800 So.2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). On remand, should the trial court again deny this claim, it shall attach to its order portions of the record sufficient conclusive[733]*733ly to refute it; otherwise, it shall hold a hearing on the claim. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ. and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

807 So. 2d 732, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1351, 2002 WL 205816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack