Mohr v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mohr v. State

17 So. 3d 1249, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13477, 2009 WL 2901302

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 2009

Docket2D08-1526

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 17 So. 3d 1249 (Mohr 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

Mohr v. State, 17 So. 3d 1249, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13477, 2009 WL 2901302 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Judge.

Peter F. Mohr appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the postconviction court’s order with regard to the summary denial of ground three of Mr. Mohr’s motion. We affirm without comment the postconviction court’s denial of all other claims for relief.

In ground three, Mr. Mohr alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because counsel failed to impeach a witness with her prior inconsistent statements. However, Mr. Mohr “did not allege on what portions of the testimony the witness[] could have been impeached or how the failure to do so affected his trial.” Keevis v. State, 908 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). For this reason, the postcon-viction court summarily denied this claim as legally insufficient. We agree that the claim was legally insufficient. But, in light of the recent opinion in Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), we reverse the summary denial of ground three and remand with instructions to strike this ground with leave to amend within a reasonable amount of time in accordance with Spera. See Sierra v. State, 993 So.2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

*1250 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

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

WALLACE, Judge.

Peter F. Mohr appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the postconviction court’s order with regard to the summary denial of ground three of Mr. Mohr’s motion. We affirm without comment the postconviction court’s denial of all other claims for relief.

In ground three, Mr. Mohr alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because counsel failed to impeach a witness with her prior inconsistent statements. However, Mr. Mohr “did not allege on what portions of the testimony the witness[] could have been impeached or how the failure to do so affected his trial.” Keevis v. State, 908 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). For this reason, the postcon-viction court summarily denied this claim as legally insufficient. We agree that the claim was legally insufficient. But, in light of the recent opinion in Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), we reverse the summary denial of ground three and remand with instructions to strike this ground with leave to amend within a reasonable amount of time in accordance with Spera. See Sierra v. State, 993 So.2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

*1250 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 3d 1249, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13477, 2009 WL 2901302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohr-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack