Spurgeon v. State

988 So. 2d 1224, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 15047, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2008
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 20, 2008·No. No. 1D07-4685·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the appellant’s statements to a police officer given without Miranda1 warnings, mi-sadvising the appellant that he should not testify because if he chose to testify he would lose the right to the final closing argument at trial, and in conceding the appellant’s guilt in closing arguments. We affirm as to the denial of appellant’s third claim without further discussion. However, because his first two claims are facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by record attachments, we reverse for further proceedings. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d).

[1225]*1225Accordingly, we affirm m part, reverse in part, and remand.

BARFIELD, ALLEN, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Spurgeon v. State, 988 So. 2d 1224, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 15047, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2008 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

988 So. 2d 1224 (Spurgeon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)