Saunders v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saunders v. State

704 So. 2d 224, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 433, 1998 WL 17624

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1364

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 704 So. 2d 224 (Saunders 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

Saunders v. State, 704 So. 2d 224, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 433, 1998 WL 17624 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserted in his motion for post conviction relief and amendment to that motion several claims of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, denial of the right to testify, double jeopardy and illegal habitual offender sentencing. The trial court summarily de[225]*225nied post conviction relief as to all of the grounds asserted.

We affirm as to the claims of denial of the right to testify, double jeopardy and illegal habitual offender sentencing, but reverse and remand on certain claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Groover v. State, 489 So.2d 15 (Fla.1986). We reverse and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate an insanity defense and appellant’s competency, and to call witnesses relating to those defenses, or for an evidentiary hearing on these claims.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., and PARIENTE, BARBARA J., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserted in his motion for post conviction relief and amendment to that motion several claims of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, denial of the right to testify, double jeopardy and illegal habitual offender sentencing. The trial court summarily de[225]*225nied post conviction relief as to all of the grounds asserted.

We affirm as to the claims of denial of the right to testify, double jeopardy and illegal habitual offender sentencing, but reverse and remand on certain claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Groover v. State, 489 So.2d 15 (Fla.1986). We reverse and remand for attachment of portions of the record refuting appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate an insanity defense and appellant’s competency, and to call witnesses relating to those defenses, or for an evidentiary hearing on these claims.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., and PARIENTE, BARBARA J., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 So. 2d 224, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 433, 1998 WL 17624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack