Mitchell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mitchell v. State

572 So. 2d 34, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 28, 1991 WL 143

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 4, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2210

StatusPublished

This text of 572 So. 2d 34 (Mitchell 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

Mitchell v. State, 572 So. 2d 34, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 28, 1991 WL 143 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Mitchell appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, without an evidentiary hearing. Mitchell’s motion for post-conviction relief was based upon two grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel and imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in one of the cases for which Mitchell was sentenced, case no. 86-15394.

We find no error as to defendant’s claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel and affirm as to that portion of the trial court order. Defendant’s sentencing challenge concerns the imposition of two consecutive three-year mandatory minimum terms for aggravated assault of two different individuals. The trial court in its order of summary denial makes no specific reference to this issue. We are unable to determine whether the convictions resulting in the sentences for aggravated assault in case no. 86-15394 involved instances occurring at separate times and places. If they did not, the decisions in Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983) and Pettis v. State, 448 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) would support defendant’s contention that the sentences imposed were illegal. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the trial court as to ground two only for an eviden-tiary hearing or for attachment to the trial court’s order of that portion of the record showing the movant is not entitled to relief.

LETTS, DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Mitchell appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, without an evidentiary hearing. Mitchell’s motion for post-conviction relief was based upon two grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel and imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in one of the cases for which Mitchell was sentenced, case no. 86-15394.

We find no error as to defendant’s claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel and affirm as to that portion of the trial court order. Defendant’s sentencing challenge concerns the imposition of two consecutive three-year mandatory minimum terms for aggravated assault of two different individuals. The trial court in its order of summary denial makes no specific reference to this issue. We are unable to determine whether the convictions resulting in the sentences for aggravated assault in case no. 86-15394 involved instances occurring at separate times and places. If they did not, the decisions in Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983) and Pettis v. State, 448 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) would support defendant’s contention that the sentences imposed were illegal. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the trial court as to ground two only for an eviden-tiary hearing or for attachment to the trial court’s order of that portion of the record showing the movant is not entitled to relief.

LETTS, DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 So. 2d 34, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 28, 1991 WL 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack