PLEZ v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

PLEZ v. State

6 So. 3d 1255, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1786, 2009 WL 605416

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 2009

Docket3D09-32

StatusPublished

This text of 6 So. 3d 1255 (PLEZ 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

PLEZ v. State, 6 So. 3d 1255, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1786, 2009 WL 605416 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The defendant was convicted of attempted felony murder, armed robbery, and attempted armed robbery. He alleges that during trial, the detective communicated to the jury the information contained in an anonymous tip which implicated this defendant in this crime. He alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object or move for a mistrial.

On appeal from a summary denial of an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief, this court is obligated to reverse unless the postconviction record conclusively refutes the claim. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). The State filed a response in the trial court which appears to acknowledge that the comment was made. The State response did not attach the relevant pages of the transcript and failed to address the applicable case law, see Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and its progeny. As the post-conviction record now before us does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse as to point one and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief with regard to point two.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The defendant was convicted of attempted felony murder, armed robbery, and attempted armed robbery. He alleges that during trial, the detective communicated to the jury the information contained in an anonymous tip which implicated this defendant in this crime. He alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object or move for a mistrial.

On appeal from a summary denial of an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief, this court is obligated to reverse unless the postconviction record conclusively refutes the claim. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). The State filed a response in the trial court which appears to acknowledge that the comment was made. The State response did not attach the relevant pages of the transcript and failed to address the applicable case law, see Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and its progeny. As the post-conviction record now before us does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse as to point one and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief with regard to point two.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 So. 3d 1255, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1786, 2009 WL 605416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plez-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack