Poisal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Poisal v. State

876 So. 2d 1262, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9956, 2004 WL 1506237

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 2004

DocketNo. 4D04-1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 876 So. 2d 1262 (Poisal 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

Poisal v. State, 876 So. 2d 1262, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9956, 2004 WL 1506237 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, J.

Poisal appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion, in which he alleged, inter alia, that his plea was involuntary because of misadvice given him by his attorney. According to Poisal, his attorney told him that if he pled guilty to one count of robbery, he would be sentenced to a year in jail and some probation. Poisal entered a plea and was sentenced to four years incarceration followed by threé years of probation.

In his motion for post-conviction relief, Poisal did not allege that he would not have entered the plea had he been given correct advice of counsel. Without this allegation, the motion is legally deficient. We therefore affirm the summary denial of his motion. Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to his ability to file an amended 3.850 motion. See Roldan v. State, 695 So.2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Days v. State, 637 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

We find no merit in the other claims raised by appellant for post-conviction relief. Thus, any amended rule 3.850 motion filed by appellant shall be limited to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on misadvice concerning the consequences of his plea.

AFFIRMED, without prejudice.

STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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