Matthews v. State
This text of 614 So. 2d 25 (Matthews 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.
Opinion
Matthews appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant alleged in his motion that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his plea was coerced as a result of misinformation provided by his attorney concerning [26]*26the length of time he would spend in prison. There was no specific allegation that had counsel given him the correct information, he would not have entered the plea. Without this allegation, the petition was deficient. Thompson v. State, 599 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Since appellant may be able to properly allege reliance on the advice of counsel, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant pursuing a subsequent 3.850 motion on the grounds of ineffective trial counsel as a result of counsel’s alleged misrepresentations. Marsh v. State, 581 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
614 So. 2d 25, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2088, 1993 WL 39610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.