Pita v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pita v. State

926 So. 2d 472, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5636, 2006 WL 1067292

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 19, 2006

DocketNo. 3D06-493

StatusPublished

This text of 926 So. 2d 472 (Pita 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

Pita v. State, 926 So. 2d 472, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5636, 2006 WL 1067292 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Pita appeals from an order summarily denying a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the post-conviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A) & (D).

Because the defendant Pita made a facially valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Issue 2 of his petition, and because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the attachment of record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. See Ryland v. State, 880 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Pita appeals from an order summarily denying a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the post-conviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A) & (D).

Because the defendant Pita made a facially valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Issue 2 of his petition, and because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the attachment of record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. See Ryland v. State, 880 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

926 So. 2d 472, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5636, 2006 WL 1067292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pita-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack