Petrie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Petrie v. State

622 So. 2d 119, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7892, 1993 WL 280524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1993

DocketNo. 93-0611

StatusPublished

This text of 622 So. 2d 119 (Petrie 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

Petrie v. State, 622 So. 2d 119, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7892, 1993 WL 280524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied relief because the notary section of the motion did not comply with section 117.-05(16), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), in that it did not state that appellant was either personally known to the notary or that he produced identification. This court has held that the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, for this particular reason, is error. Kendall v. State, 619 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Crotty v. State, 568 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

In reviewing the claims contained in the motion we have concluded that the only one which merits reversal is the claim that counsel was ineffective in allowing appellant to proceed to trial while under psychotropic medication which rendered him mentally incompetent. We therefore reverse and remand so that the trial court can attach those portions of the record showing that appellant is not entitled to relief on [120]*120this ground, or for an evidentiary hearing solely on that issue.

Reversed.

HERSEY, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied relief because the notary section of the motion did not comply with section 117.-05(16), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), in that it did not state that appellant was either personally known to the notary or that he produced identification. This court has held that the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, for this particular reason, is error. Kendall v. State, 619 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Crotty v. State, 568 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

In reviewing the claims contained in the motion we have concluded that the only one which merits reversal is the claim that counsel was ineffective in allowing appellant to proceed to trial while under psychotropic medication which rendered him mentally incompetent. We therefore reverse and remand so that the trial court can attach those portions of the record showing that appellant is not entitled to relief on [120]*120this ground, or for an evidentiary hearing solely on that issue.

Reversed.

HERSEY, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 119, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7892, 1993 WL 280524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrie-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack