Mullen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mullen v. State

890 So. 2d 548, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 78, 2005 WL 53270

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-3274

StatusPublished

This text of 890 So. 2d 548 (Mullen 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

Mullen v. State, 890 So. 2d 548, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 78, 2005 WL 53270 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Mullen appeals a trial court order which summarily denied his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the summary denial of all claims except for claim two.

In claim two, Mullen alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for failure to ensure that his guidelines sentence was correctly scored. Appellant alleged that this ineffective assistance of counsel led him to enter his pleas and that he would not have done so had he known of the scoresheet error. The trial court failed to attach portions of the record which refute that claim. See Richardson v. State, 829 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Brazeail v. State, 821 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of claim two and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting that claim, or for an evi-dentiary hearing.

STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

William Mullen appeals a trial court order which summarily denied his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the summary denial of all claims except for claim two.

In claim two, Mullen alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for failure to ensure that his guidelines sentence was correctly scored. Appellant alleged that this ineffective assistance of counsel led him to enter his pleas and that he would not have done so had he known of the scoresheet error. The trial court failed to attach portions of the record which refute that claim. See Richardson v. State, 829 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Brazeail v. State, 821 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of claim two and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting that claim, or for an evi-dentiary hearing.

STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 So. 2d 548, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 78, 2005 WL 53270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack