Michael v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael v. State

920 So. 2d 742, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1643, 2006 WL 304667

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 2006

DocketNo. 5D05-3728

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 920 So. 2d 742 (Michael 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

Michael v. State, 920 So. 2d 742, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1643, 2006 WL 304667 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm except as to ground three of his motion, which asserts that based on defense counsel’s misinformation as to the potential maximum sentence he could receive at trial, Appellant rejected a plea offer for a significantly shorter sentence than the habitual felony offender sentence that was imposed after trial. As the State concedes on appeal, the trial court failed to attach portions of the record that conclusively negate Appellant’s allegation. On remand, the trial court shall either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim in ground three or hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm except as to ground three of his motion, which asserts that based on defense counsel’s misinformation as to the potential maximum sentence he could receive at trial, Appellant rejected a plea offer for a significantly shorter sentence than the habitual felony offender sentence that was imposed after trial. As the State concedes on appeal, the trial court failed to attach portions of the record that conclusively negate Appellant’s allegation. On remand, the trial court shall either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim in ground three or hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 So. 2d 742, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1643, 2006 WL 304667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack