Kampff v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kampff v. State

468 So. 2d 462, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1151, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13883

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 1985

DocketNo. 84-608

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 So. 2d 462 (Kampff 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

Kampff v. State, 468 So. 2d 462, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1151, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13883 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to appoint counsel to represent the defendant in a 3.850 post-conviction proceeding. The defendant’s motion contained an assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel, resulting from appointed trial counsel’s failure to raise ,the defense of voluntary intoxication in defendant’s first-degree murder trial. We have reviewed the record and, in view of the specific facts involved, we believe this case satisfies the elements set out in Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979), requiring the appointment of counsel for the 3.850 hearing. See also Halpin v. State, 448 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that a further hearing be held on the defendant’s 3.850 motion, limited to the one point noted in this opinion, and at which the defendant is to be afforded court-appointed counsel.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to appoint counsel to represent the defendant in a 3.850 post-conviction proceeding. The defendant’s motion contained an assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel, resulting from appointed trial counsel’s failure to raise ,the defense of voluntary intoxication in defendant’s first-degree murder trial. We have reviewed the record and, in view of the specific facts involved, we believe this case satisfies the elements set out in Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979), requiring the appointment of counsel for the 3.850 hearing. See also Halpin v. State, 448 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that a further hearing be held on the defendant’s 3.850 motion, limited to the one point noted in this opinion, and at which the defendant is to be afforded court-appointed counsel.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 So. 2d 462, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1151, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kampff-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack