Magee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Magee v. State

252 So. 3d 423

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D18-839

StatusPublished

This text of 252 So. 3d 423 (Magee 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

Magee v. State, 252 So. 3d 423 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul Frederick Magee appeals the final order entered by the post-conviction court summarily denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion raised four grounds for relief, and all were denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, Magee challenges the summary denial of the first and third grounds, arguing they were facially sufficient and warranted an evidentiary hearing. We affirm as to the court's denial of the first ground; however, we reverse as to the denial of the third ground. On remand, the post-conviction court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which conclusively refute Magee's ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised in ground three. See Nelson v. State, 73 So.3d 77, 84 (Fla. 2011).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

PALMER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paul Frederick Magee appeals the final order entered by the post-conviction court summarily denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion raised four grounds for relief, and all were denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, Magee challenges the summary denial of the first and third grounds, arguing they were facially sufficient and warranted an evidentiary hearing. We affirm as to the court's denial of the first ground; however, we reverse as to the denial of the third ground. On remand, the post-conviction court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which conclusively refute Magee's ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised in ground three. See Nelson v. State, 73 So.3d 77, 84 (Fla. 2011).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

PALMER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 So. 3d 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magee-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack