LEONARD KORETS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida

LEONARD KORETS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 2023

Docket22-0828

StatusPublished

This text of LEONARD KORETS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (LEONARD KORETS v. STATE OF FLORIDA) 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

LEONARD KORETS v. STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

LEONARD KORETS, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D22-828

[January 18, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Peter Holden, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-007162CF10A.

Leonard Korets, Lake City, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Korets appeals an order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. In his postconviction motion, Korets raised six grounds for relief. We affirm grounds two through six without comment. We write to address only ground one, on which we reverse.

On the first ground, we ordered the State to file a response “limited to appellant’s claim in ground one that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury being instructed on aggravated battery with a deadly weapon as a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder as charged in count one of the amended information.”

In its response to our order, the State agrees that the jury should not have been instructed on aggravated battery with a deadly weapon as a lesser-included offense because the amended information did not allege that Korets used a deadly weapon. So we reverse the court’s order summarily denying ground one of Koret’s motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing on that claim, or for the attachment of additional records conclusively refuting the claim. We affirm the court’s denial of grounds two through six of the postconviction motion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CIKLIN, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

LEONARD KORETS, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D22-828

[January 18, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Peter Holden, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-007162CF10A.

Leonard Korets, Lake City, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Korets appeals an order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. In his postconviction motion, Korets raised six grounds for relief. We affirm grounds two through six without comment. We write to address only ground one, on which we reverse.

On the first ground, we ordered the State to file a response “limited to appellant’s claim in ground one that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury being instructed on aggravated battery with a deadly weapon as a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder as charged in count one of the amended information.”

In its response to our order, the State agrees that the jury should not have been instructed on aggravated battery with a deadly weapon as a lesser-included offense because the amended information did not allege that Korets used a deadly weapon. So we reverse the court’s order summarily denying ground one of Koret’s motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing on that claim, or for the attachment of additional records conclusively refuting the claim. We affirm the court’s denial of grounds two through six of the postconviction motion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CIKLIN, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

LEONARD KORETS v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-korets-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2023.