Munoz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Munoz v. State

129 So. 3d 472, 2014 WL 30580, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 106

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 3, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-3154

StatusPublished

This text of 129 So. 3d 472 (Munoz 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

Munoz v. State, 129 So. 3d 472, 2014 WL 30580, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 106 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant has filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion raising three claims. We affirm claims one and three, but reverse and remand claim two for further proceedings. The Appellant alleges in claim two that counsel acted ineffectively for failing to file a motion for the trial judge who accepted the Appellant’s open plea to recuse himself after announcing on the record that the judge maintained an “active relationship” with the victim’s family, and thereafter sentenced the Appellant to a sentence greater than that which the State sought. We conclude that the Appellant’s allegations are facially sufficient and are not refuted by the record. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330; Thompson v. State, 990 So.2d 482 (Fla.2008). Accordingly, the trial court shall either attach the portion of the record that conclusively refutes the Appellant’s claim, or shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

CLARK, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant has filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion raising three claims. We affirm claims one and three, but reverse and remand claim two for further proceedings. The Appellant alleges in claim two that counsel acted ineffectively for failing to file a motion for the trial judge who accepted the Appellant’s open plea to recuse himself after announcing on the record that the judge maintained an “active relationship” with the victim’s family, and thereafter sentenced the Appellant to a sentence greater than that which the State sought. We conclude that the Appellant’s allegations are facially sufficient and are not refuted by the record. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330; Thompson v. State, 990 So.2d 482 (Fla.2008). Accordingly, the trial court shall either attach the portion of the record that conclusively refutes the Appellant’s claim, or shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

CLARK, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 So. 3d 472, 2014 WL 30580, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack