Kizer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kizer v. State

155 So. 3d 498, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 816, 2015 WL 276522

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-757

StatusPublished

This text of 155 So. 3d 498 (Kizer 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

Kizer v. State, 155 So. 3d 498, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 816, 2015 WL 276522 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Altory Kizer appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.850. The State correctly concedes that we should reverse the denial of Ground 1 of Kizer’s motion and remand for a new hearing because Kizer was deprived of the assistance of his retained attorney at that hearing. We also reverse the summary denial of Ground 3 because the court failed to give Kizer one opportunity to amend that facially insufficient claim. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007). Finally, we affirm the summary denials of Grounds 2, 4, and 5 as being conclusively refuted by the record (Grounds 2 and 5) or conceded (Ground 4).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

LAWSON, COHEN and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Altory Kizer appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.850. The State correctly concedes that we should reverse the denial of Ground 1 of Kizer’s motion and remand for a new hearing because Kizer was deprived of the assistance of his retained attorney at that hearing. We also reverse the summary denial of Ground 3 because the court failed to give Kizer one opportunity to amend that facially insufficient claim. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007). Finally, we affirm the summary denials of Grounds 2, 4, and 5 as being conclusively refuted by the record (Grounds 2 and 5) or conceded (Ground 4).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

LAWSON, COHEN and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 3d 498, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 816, 2015 WL 276522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kizer-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack