Spadaro v. State

528 So. 2d 1346, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1860, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3517, 1988 WL 80913
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 5, 1988
DocketNo. 88-1083
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 528 So. 2d 1346 (Spadaro 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
Spadaro v. State, 528 So. 2d 1346, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1860, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3517, 1988 WL 80913 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Charles Spadaro appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.850 and this opinion.

We agree with the trial court that Spada-ro’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are facially insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Thus, that part of the trial court’s order is affirmed.

We must, however, reverse the summary denial of Spadaro’s allegations that his plea was involuntary and that his sentence is illegal. Although the trial court denied these claims without an evidentiary hearing, but did attach portions of the record, we conclude that the attachments do not conclusively refute Spadaro’s allegations. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial court’s order which denied Spadaro’s allegations that his plea was involuntary and that his sentence is illegal. Upon remand, unless the files and records conclusively show that Spadaro is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court is to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If an evidentiary hearing is not necessary, the trial court is to attach to its order sufficient record to overcome Spadaro’s contentions. If the court should deny Spa-[1347]*1347daro’s motion, he has thirty days in which to appeal.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Spadaro v. State
539 So. 2d 1169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
528 So. 2d 1346, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1860, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3517, 1988 WL 80913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spadaro-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.