Kearse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kearse v. State

876 So. 2d 1291, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10980, 2004 WL 1635879

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 2004

DocketNo. 5D04-1774

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 876 So. 2d 1291 (Kearse 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

Kearse v. State, 876 So. 2d 1291, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10980, 2004 WL 1635879 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this post-conviction proceeding, Appellant, who received a 30-year sentence after he pled no contest to Sale of Cocaine, a second degree felony, challenges the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. Appellant claims that his counsel, who had received notice that the State intended to seek felony habitual offender enhancement of his sentence, failed to explain that the effect of the enhancement was that Appellant could receive a sentence of double the statutory maximum. Because the order denying relief on this ground fails to attach portions of the record which refute this claim, we reverse and remand this cause with instructions that the lower court either attach portions of the record that refute his cláim or conduct an eviden-tiary hearing.

Appellant’s other points on appeal are either redundant, not cognizable under rule 3.850, or are otherwise lacking in merit.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

THOMPSON, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this post-conviction proceeding, Appellant, who received a 30-year sentence after he pled no contest to Sale of Cocaine, a second degree felony, challenges the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. Appellant claims that his counsel, who had received notice that the State intended to seek felony habitual offender enhancement of his sentence, failed to explain that the effect of the enhancement was that Appellant could receive a sentence of double the statutory maximum. Because the order denying relief on this ground fails to attach portions of the record which refute this claim, we reverse and remand this cause with instructions that the lower court either attach portions of the record that refute his cláim or conduct an eviden-tiary hearing.

Appellant’s other points on appeal are either redundant, not cognizable under rule 3.850, or are otherwise lacking in merit.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

THOMPSON, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

876 So. 2d 1291, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10980, 2004 WL 1635879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kearse-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack