Morgan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morgan v. State

600 So. 2d 1290, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6625, 1992 WL 139198

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1992

DocketNo. 92-0451

StatusPublished

This text of 600 So. 2d 1290 (Morgan 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

Morgan v. State, 600 So. 2d 1290, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6625, 1992 WL 139198 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pro se, has appealed an order of the trial court denying his motion for post conviction relief. Appellant seeks review of an order entered on his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and illegal sentence.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion as concerned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. As to that claim the motion was not timely filed. However, as to appellant’s claim regarding his sentence, such a motion may be filed at any time. Since the trial court’s order does not have attached portions of the record which refute appellant’s claims of illegal sentence, we reverse and remand to the trial court to either attach such portions of the record to its order, or to afford appellant an evidentiary hearing solely on this claim.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pro se, has appealed an order of the trial court denying his motion for post conviction relief. Appellant seeks review of an order entered on his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and illegal sentence.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion as concerned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. As to that claim the motion was not timely filed. However, as to appellant’s claim regarding his sentence, such a motion may be filed at any time. Since the trial court’s order does not have attached portions of the record which refute appellant’s claims of illegal sentence, we reverse and remand to the trial court to either attach such portions of the record to its order, or to afford appellant an evidentiary hearing solely on this claim.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 So. 2d 1290, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6625, 1992 WL 139198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.