Lewis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lewis v. State

892 So. 2d 1231, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1623, 2005 WL 357038

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-1879

StatusPublished

This text of 892 So. 2d 1231 (Lewis 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

Lewis v. State, 892 So. 2d 1231, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1623, 2005 WL 357038 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Howard C. Lewis appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. As we interpret it, the sworn motion filed by defendant-appellant Lewis alleges affirmative misadvice by trial counsel that he would receive gain time on a portion of his seven year mandatory minimum sentence imposed under sub-subparagraph 893.135(l)(b)l.b., Florida Statutes (2002). As the record now before us does not conclusively refute that claim, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235, 238 (Fla.1996); Howard v. State, 879 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Bell v. State, 746 So.2d 515, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Accordingly the order now before us is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Howard C. Lewis appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. As we interpret it, the sworn motion filed by defendant-appellant Lewis alleges affirmative misadvice by trial counsel that he would receive gain time on a portion of his seven year mandatory minimum sentence imposed under sub-subparagraph 893.135(l)(b)l.b., Florida Statutes (2002). As the record now before us does not conclusively refute that claim, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235, 238 (Fla.1996); Howard v. State, 879 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Bell v. State, 746 So.2d 515, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Accordingly the order now before us is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 So. 2d 1231, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1623, 2005 WL 357038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack