Mayolo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mayolo v. State

692 So. 2d 939, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3257, 1997 WL 163578

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 9, 1997·No. No. 97-0253·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record excerpts attached to the order summarily denying David Mayolo’s rule 3.850 motion do not conclusively refute his allegations that the public defender’s office had a conflict due to its prior representation of a state witness and that he was not given prior notice that a fee for the public defender’s services would be assessed. The order denying the motion is reversed and the case is remanded for evidentiary hearing or attachment of additional record excerpts that show that Mayolo is not entitled to any relief on those two issues. We agree with the trial court’s denial of the remainder of his claims.

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record excerpts attached to the order summarily denying David Mayolo’s rule 3.850 motion do not conclusively refute his allegations that the public defender’s office had a conflict due to its prior representation of a state witness and that he was not given prior notice that a fee for the public defender’s services would be assessed. The order denying the motion is reversed and the case is remanded for evidentiary hearing or attachment of additional record excerpts that show that Mayolo is not entitled to any relief on those two issues. We agree with the trial court’s denial of the remainder of his claims.

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Mayolo v. State, 692 So. 2d 939, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3257, 1997 WL 163578 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

692 So. 2d 939 (Mayolo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related