Schummer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schummer v. State

693 So. 2d 633, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3513, 1997 WL 163240

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2954

StatusPublished

This text of 693 So. 2d 633 (Schummer 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

Schummer v. State, 693 So. 2d 633, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3513, 1997 WL 163240 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We conclude that all but two of the alleged grounds for relief were facially insufficient or otherwise precluded under rule 3.850, and we affirm the appealed order as to those claims. However, the appellant also alleged that he accepted and deposited certain payments upon counsel’s advice that this would not result in criminal liability, and that counsel failed to present evidence which would have shown that an advance payment was made for work which the appellant would subsequently perform through his own business. These claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were accompanied by the factual recitations necessary to present a prima facie claim for relief with regard to the convictions predicated on these payments. The appealed order is therefore reversed insofar as it summarily denies these claims, and the case is remanded for the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide the necessary attachments refuting the claims as delineated in rule 3.850(d).

MINER, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We conclude that all but two of the alleged grounds for relief were facially insufficient or otherwise precluded under rule 3.850, and we affirm the appealed order as to those claims. However, the appellant also alleged that he accepted and deposited certain payments upon counsel’s advice that this would not result in criminal liability, and that counsel failed to present evidence which would have shown that an advance payment was made for work which the appellant would subsequently perform through his own business. These claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were accompanied by the factual recitations necessary to present a prima facie claim for relief with regard to the convictions predicated on these payments. The appealed order is therefore reversed insofar as it summarily denies these claims, and the case is remanded for the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide the necessary attachments refuting the claims as delineated in rule 3.850(d).

MINER, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 633, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3513, 1997 WL 163240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schummer-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.