McGriff v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGriff v. State

672 So. 2d 110, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4113, 1996 WL 194425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 1996

DocketNo. 95-585

StatusPublished

This text of 672 So. 2d 110 (McGriff 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

McGriff v. State, 672 So. 2d 110, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4113, 1996 WL 194425 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an order of the lower court summarily denying Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Of the five grounds for relief raised in the motion, only one requires discussion here.

Appellant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel allowed him to enter a guilty plea to 17 additional counts of uttering a forged instrument which were never formally charged by the State. See, e.g., Caristi v. State, 578 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (defense counsel ineffective where alleged that he failed to inform defendant under Rule 3.171, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the result of which was the signing of a plea agreement [111]*111that did not accurately reflect the negotiated plea); Rackley v. State, 571 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Since the motion and the lower court’s attachment do not conclusively show that Appellant is not entitled to relief on this ground, we reverse and remand for further proceedings under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The lower court’s denial of relief on the remaining grounds raised is affirmed.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an order of the lower court summarily denying Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Of the five grounds for relief raised in the motion, only one requires discussion here.

Appellant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel allowed him to enter a guilty plea to 17 additional counts of uttering a forged instrument which were never formally charged by the State. See, e.g., Caristi v. State, 578 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (defense counsel ineffective where alleged that he failed to inform defendant under Rule 3.171, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the result of which was the signing of a plea agreement [111]*111that did not accurately reflect the negotiated plea); Rackley v. State, 571 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Since the motion and the lower court’s attachment do not conclusively show that Appellant is not entitled to relief on this ground, we reverse and remand for further proceedings under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The lower court’s denial of relief on the remaining grounds raised is affirmed.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 So. 2d 110, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4113, 1996 WL 194425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgriff-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack