Mittasch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mittasch v. State

17 So. 3d 909, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14107, 2009 WL 3018128

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 2009

Docket4D08-4194

StatusPublished

This text of 17 So. 3d 909 (Mittasch 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

Mittasch v. State, 17 So. 3d 909, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14107, 2009 WL 3018128 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant raised nine grounds for relief. We reverse on one ground and affirm the trial court’s decision as to the other eight. Appellant was convicted of a burglary at a motel room. Ground one of his motion contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call witnesses who would have supported the position that he had permission to be in the room. We find appellant’s motion to be facially sufficient. See Ford v. State, 825 So.2d 358, 360 (Fla.2002) (quoting Jackson v. State, 711 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). Consequently, we remand to the trial court to attach portions of the record to refute the claim or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant raised nine grounds for relief. We reverse on one ground and affirm the trial court’s decision as to the other eight. Appellant was convicted of a burglary at a motel room. Ground one of his motion contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call witnesses who would have supported the position that he had permission to be in the room. We find appellant’s motion to be facially sufficient. See Ford v. State, 825 So.2d 358, 360 (Fla.2002) (quoting Jackson v. State, 711 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). Consequently, we remand to the trial court to attach portions of the record to refute the claim or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 3d 909, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14107, 2009 WL 3018128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mittasch-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack