Mallard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mallard v. State

17 So. 3d 1285, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14931, 2009 WL 3189370

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 2009

Docket4D09-843

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 So. 3d 1285 (Mallard 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

Mallard v. State, 17 So. 3d 1285, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14931, 2009 WL 3189370 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged several grounds. We agree with the defendant that he alleged a legally sufficient ground for post-conviction re *1286 lief by contending that his trial counsel should not have coerced him into waiving his right to a speedy trial after the speedy trial time had elapsed. See Hamilton v. State, 979 So.2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). While this may have been a strategic decision, that is not obviously the case from the current record.

We thus reverse as to this ground and remand for the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide attachments conclusively refuting the claim. We find that the other grounds alleged in the motion for post-conviction relief were properly denied as legally inadequate or conclusively refuted by the record.

Affirmed in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged several grounds. We agree with the defendant that he alleged a legally sufficient ground for post-conviction re *1286 lief by contending that his trial counsel should not have coerced him into waiving his right to a speedy trial after the speedy trial time had elapsed. See Hamilton v. State, 979 So.2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). While this may have been a strategic decision, that is not obviously the case from the current record.

We thus reverse as to this ground and remand for the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide attachments conclusively refuting the claim. We find that the other grounds alleged in the motion for post-conviction relief were properly denied as legally inadequate or conclusively refuted by the record.

Affirmed in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 3d 1285, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14931, 2009 WL 3189370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallard-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack