Pettway v. State

502 So. 2d 1353, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 646
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 25, 1987
Docket87-356
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 1353 (Pettway 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
Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1353, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 646 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

502 So.2d 1353 (1987)

John E. PETTWAY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-356.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 25, 1987.

*1354 PER CURIAM.

John Pettway appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief.

Pettway is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence, apparently a guideline sentence. He claims that this sentence was artificially enhanced by the effect upon his scoresheet calculation of several uncounseled convictions, and that trial counsel knew of this inaccuracy but failed to object. If this allegation is true Pettway might be entitled to relief. Lanier v. State 478 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Pilla v. State, 477 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The trial court's order states that the files and records in the case support denial of the motion, but the court did not attach copies of these records as is required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Pettway also alleges that his plea of nolo contendere was "coerced". This allegation is facially insufficient and the trial court properly denied relief on this ground.

Upon remand the trial court may again deny the motion, but should include whatever exhibits or other evidence it relied upon in support of that denial. In the event the court chooses this alternative Pettway must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review. If, on the other hand, the trial court cannot substantiate denial of the motion by reference to the record, it should direct the state attorney to file an answer to the motion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Brye v. State
677 So. 2d 1357 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Manuel v. State
629 So. 2d 1052 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Wilson v. State
531 So. 2d 1012 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Rowe v. State
523 So. 2d 620 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Leyba v. State
520 So. 2d 705 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Lowe v. State
516 So. 2d 114 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Stewart v. State
511 So. 2d 375 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
502 So. 2d 1353, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettway-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.