Matyas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matyas v. State

663 So. 2d 671, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12107, 1995 WL 681288

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1995

DocketNo. 95-03159

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 663 So. 2d 671 (Matyas 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

Matyas v. State, 663 So. 2d 671, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12107, 1995 WL 681288 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sandy Matyas appeals the- summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his properly sworn motion and memorandum, Matyas claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for several reasons. Because the trial court denied the motion without explanation or attachments, we are unable to review the merits of this appeal. Therefore, we reverse and remand this cause for the trial court to either again deny the motion and attach to its order those portions of the record which demonstrate that Matyas is not entitled to relief or con[672]*672duct an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of Matyas’ claims.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sandy Matyas appeals the- summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his properly sworn motion and memorandum, Matyas claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for several reasons. Because the trial court denied the motion without explanation or attachments, we are unable to review the merits of this appeal. Therefore, we reverse and remand this cause for the trial court to either again deny the motion and attach to its order those portions of the record which demonstrate that Matyas is not entitled to relief or con[672]*672duct an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of Matyas’ claims.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

663 So. 2d 671, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12107, 1995 WL 681288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matyas-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack