Schiedenhelm v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schiedenhelm v. State

255 So. 3d 431

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D17-3504

StatusPublished

This text of 255 So. 3d 431 (Schiedenhelm 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

Schiedenhelm v. State, 255 So. 3d 431 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jeromy Schiedenhelm, appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, where he raised eight claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Appellant filed a legally and facially sufficient claim in ground six, and the attachments do not conclusively refute the claim, we reverse the summary denial of ground six and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim. See Cioeta v. State, 204 So.3d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY, and WALLIS JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jeromy Schiedenhelm, appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, where he raised eight claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Appellant filed a legally and facially sufficient claim in ground six, and the attachments do not conclusively refute the claim, we reverse the summary denial of ground six and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim. See Cioeta v. State, 204 So.3d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY, and WALLIS JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 So. 3d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schiedenhelm-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack