O'Connor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Connor v. State

785 So. 2d 758, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7716, 2001 WL 603513

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-3350

StatusPublished

This text of 785 So. 2d 758 (O'Connor 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

O'Connor v. State, 785 So. 2d 758, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7716, 2001 WL 603513 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court failed to address the claims raised in the motion and attached no record excerpts supporting the summary denial. The appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to elicit a factual basis for his plea is without merit. However, because the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a statute of limitations [759]*759defense, see Byrd v. State, 754 So.2d 191, 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), we reverse the summary denial of that claim and remand to the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record excerpts conclusively demonstrating that the appellant is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

ERVIN, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court failed to address the claims raised in the motion and attached no record excerpts supporting the summary denial. The appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to elicit a factual basis for his plea is without merit. However, because the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a statute of limitations [759]*759defense, see Byrd v. State, 754 So.2d 191, 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), we reverse the summary denial of that claim and remand to the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record excerpts conclusively demonstrating that the appellant is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

ERVIN, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

785 So. 2d 758, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7716, 2001 WL 603513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnor-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack