Kelvin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kelvin v. State

706 So. 2d 102, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1511, 1998 WL 65037

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

DocketNo. 97-4074

StatusPublished

This text of 706 So. 2d 102 (Kelvin 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

Kelvin v. State, 706 So. 2d 102, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1511, 1998 WL 65037 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion the denial of appellant’s first three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse the denial of' the fourth and fifth claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because, although referring to portions of the trial record in support of its denial of these claims, the trial court has failed to attach these referenced portions of the record to the order of denial as required by rule 3.850(d).

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part the order by which the motion was denied, and remand either for attachment of those portions of the record that conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, or for further proceedings. See Cooper v. State, 700 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

KAHN, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion the denial of appellant’s first three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse the denial of' the fourth and fifth claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because, although referring to portions of the trial record in support of its denial of these claims, the trial court has failed to attach these referenced portions of the record to the order of denial as required by rule 3.850(d).

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part the order by which the motion was denied, and remand either for attachment of those portions of the record that conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, or for further proceedings. See Cooper v. State, 700 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

KAHN, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 102, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1511, 1998 WL 65037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelvin-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack