Perrot v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perrot v. State

795 So. 2d 1015, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12447, 2001 WL 1006255

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-4523

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 795 So. 2d 1015 (Perrot 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

Perrot v. State, 795 So. 2d 1015, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12447, 2001 WL 1006255 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

Gary L. Perrot appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Perrot alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to object or move for a mistrial when he learned that prosecutors met with witnesses, including the victim, to discuss the case after defense counsel had invoked the rule sequestering witnesses. Previously, in Perrot v. State, 765 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), we reversed and remanded this case with specific directions to the trial court to attach record evidence conclusively refuting Perrot’s claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the trial court again summarily denied Per-rot’s motion. Although the court attached three pages from the trial transcript to its order, the attachments merely confirmed several of Perrot’s allegations. Significantly, the transcript confirmed that, when asked what occurred at the meeting, one of the prosecutors stated, ‘We talked about the case.” Perrot’s claims accordingly have not been conclusively refuted. We again reverse.

On remand, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

GREEN, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.

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

SALCINES, Judge.

Gary L. Perrot appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Perrot alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to object or move for a mistrial when he learned that prosecutors met with witnesses, including the victim, to discuss the case after defense counsel had invoked the rule sequestering witnesses. Previously, in Perrot v. State, 765 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), we reversed and remanded this case with specific directions to the trial court to attach record evidence conclusively refuting Perrot’s claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the trial court again summarily denied Per-rot’s motion. Although the court attached three pages from the trial transcript to its order, the attachments merely confirmed several of Perrot’s allegations. Significantly, the transcript confirmed that, when asked what occurred at the meeting, one of the prosecutors stated, ‘We talked about the case.” Perrot’s claims accordingly have not been conclusively refuted. We again reverse.

On remand, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

GREEN, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 So. 2d 1015, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12447, 2001 WL 1006255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrot-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack