Maura v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maura v. State

469 So. 2d 150, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 734, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13098

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 1985

DocketNo. 85-242

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 469 So. 2d 150 (Maura 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

Maura v. State, 469 So. 2d 150, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 734, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13098 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from summary denial of a Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Cr.P. motion.

The appellant, in attacking his conviction and sentence in this case, alleges that his plea was coerced and was not made voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea, the physical evidence necessary to [151]*151convict was never entered into evidence, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by virtue of lack of contact before the plea and silence at the plea hearing and conflict of interest by representing a co-defendant.

It appears that the first and third allegations are not refuted by the record herein within the holding of Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Furthermore, the fact that these issues may have been raised in a previous Rule 3.850 motion does not preclude a second motion where there is no showing that the first motion was adjudicated on the merits. McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983). No such showing is made in this record, therefore, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for hearing on the merits of the motion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from summary denial of a Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Cr.P. motion.

The appellant, in attacking his conviction and sentence in this case, alleges that his plea was coerced and was not made voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea, the physical evidence necessary to [151]*151convict was never entered into evidence, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by virtue of lack of contact before the plea and silence at the plea hearing and conflict of interest by representing a co-defendant.

It appears that the first and third allegations are not refuted by the record herein within the holding of Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Furthermore, the fact that these issues may have been raised in a previous Rule 3.850 motion does not preclude a second motion where there is no showing that the first motion was adjudicated on the merits. McCrae v. State, 437 So.2d 1388 (Fla.1983). No such showing is made in this record, therefore, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for hearing on the merits of the motion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 So. 2d 150, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 734, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maura-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack