Meeks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meeks v. State

198 So. 3d 948, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11711, 2016 WL 4138582

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

DocketNo. 4D16-131

StatusPublished

This text of 198 So. 3d 948 (Meeks 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

Meeks v. State, 198 So. 3d 948, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11711, 2016 WL 4138582 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of trafficking in oxycodone and sale of delivery of alprazo-lam. He appeals the summary denial of his "three-claim’ motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of points one and two without further comment. However, we reverse and remand as to point three, where appellant claims trial counsel misadvised him that - if he testified at trial he could be cross-examined as to .the details of his prior criminal record. See Hicks v. State, 666 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Curtis v. State, 689 So.2d 423, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Hope v. State, 960 So.2d 912, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The trial court is directed, to either attach portions of the record conclusively showing appellant is not entitled to relief as to this claim or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

GROSS, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of trafficking in oxycodone and sale of delivery of alprazo-lam. He appeals the summary denial of his "three-claim’ motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of points one and two without further comment. However, we reverse and remand as to point three, where appellant claims trial counsel misadvised him that - if he testified at trial he could be cross-examined as to .the details of his prior criminal record. See Hicks v. State, 666 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Curtis v. State, 689 So.2d 423, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Hope v. State, 960 So.2d 912, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The trial court is directed, to either attach portions of the record conclusively showing appellant is not entitled to relief as to this claim or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

GROSS, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 3d 948, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11711, 2016 WL 4138582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meeks-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack