Overturf v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Overturf v. State

706 So. 2d 130, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2164, 1998 WL 88349

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3187

StatusPublished

This text of 706 So. 2d 130 (Overturf 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

Overturf v. State, 706 So. 2d 130, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2164, 1998 WL 88349 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, as the attachments to the order of denial do not conclusively refute two of the grounds appellant has raised. Accordingly, we remand for an evidentiary hearing only as to the following issues: (1) whether defendant’s counsel’s disavowal of a voluntary intoxication defense during closing argument constitutes ineffective assistance; and (2) whether counsel was deficient in failing to follow through on the expert’s pretrial recommendation for further consultation on appellant’s mental status. As to the other issue raised by appellant, we affirm.

STONE, C.J., and DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, as the attachments to the order of denial do not conclusively refute two of the grounds appellant has raised. Accordingly, we remand for an evidentiary hearing only as to the following issues: (1) whether defendant’s counsel’s disavowal of a voluntary intoxication defense during closing argument constitutes ineffective assistance; and (2) whether counsel was deficient in failing to follow through on the expert’s pretrial recommendation for further consultation on appellant’s mental status. As to the other issue raised by appellant, we affirm.

STONE, C.J., and DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 130, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2164, 1998 WL 88349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overturf-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.