Saravia v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saravia v. State

841 So. 2d 619, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4473, 2003 WL 1738420

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-1767

StatusPublished

This text of 841 So. 2d 619 (Saravia 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

Saravia v. State, 841 So. 2d 619, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4473, 2003 WL 1738420 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred as a matter of law in summarily denying claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on the ground that these claims should have been raised on direct appeal. See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974). The order is therefore REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. As to the appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to rule on his timely filed motion to amend the post-conviction motion, we note that the record on appeal contains no motion to amend, but that if such a motion was timely filed, it should have been addressed prior to ruling on the post-conviction motion, and suggest the trial court consider the issue on remand.

BARFIELD, KAHN, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred as a matter of law in summarily denying claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on the ground that these claims should have been raised on direct appeal. See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974). The order is therefore REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. As to the appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to rule on his timely filed motion to amend the post-conviction motion, we note that the record on appeal contains no motion to amend, but that if such a motion was timely filed, it should have been addressed prior to ruling on the post-conviction motion, and suggest the trial court consider the issue on remand.

BARFIELD, KAHN, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 So. 2d 619, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4473, 2003 WL 1738420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saravia-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack