Lackman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lackman v. State

102 So. 3d 746, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21512, 2012 WL 6213126

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-1441

StatusPublished

This text of 102 So. 3d 746 (Lackman 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

Lackman v. State, 102 So. 3d 746, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21512, 2012 WL 6213126 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Steven Lackman appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which raised three claims. On appeal, the State concedes error as to the trial court’s ruling on the second claim, in which Lackman alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to proceed with a plea while incompetent. Lackman alleged in his motion that his counsel had him examined by one expert who found that he was incompetent to proceed, but did not pursue his lack of competence further. In accordance with the State’s confession of error, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order addressing Lack-man’s second claim and remand with directions that the trial court either attach record documents that conclusively refute the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s order.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

TORPY, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Steven Lackman appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which raised three claims. On appeal, the State concedes error as to the trial court’s ruling on the second claim, in which Lackman alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to proceed with a plea while incompetent. Lackman alleged in his motion that his counsel had him examined by one expert who found that he was incompetent to proceed, but did not pursue his lack of competence further. In accordance with the State’s confession of error, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order addressing Lack-man’s second claim and remand with directions that the trial court either attach record documents that conclusively refute the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s order.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

TORPY, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 So. 3d 746, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21512, 2012 WL 6213126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lackman-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.