Prucha v. State
This text of 108 So. 3d 721 (Prucha 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.
Opinion
We affirm the denial of Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion in all respects except that the trial court should have afforded Appellant the opportunity to amend claims 3 and 4, which pertain to the contention that trial counsel failed to investigate and inform Appellant about the viability of a motion to suppress evidence. Inartful and legally insufficient as the claims might be, we cannot say that Appellant cannot state a legally sufficient claim. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 758 (Fla.2007).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
108 So. 3d 721, 2013 WL 756644, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prucha-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.