Stanley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stanley v. State

844 So. 2d 754, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6761, 2003 WL 21034532

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-4831

StatusPublished

This text of 844 So. 2d 754 (Stanley 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

Stanley v. State, 844 So. 2d 754, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6761, 2003 WL 21034532 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the order by which the trial judge summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We reverse the order because the motion sets forth colorable claims which are not conclusively refuted by attachments to the order.

The appellant alleged colorable claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for fading to call eight witnesses, including the appellant, and for interfering with the appellant’s right to testify. Although the judge attached a portion of the trial transcript to his order, the attachment does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claims. See Farnbaugh v. State, 778 So.2d 369, 370-371 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Because these facially sufficient claims are not conclusively refuted by the attachment, the order is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings under rule 3.850.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ALLEN, C.J., BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the order by which the trial judge summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We reverse the order because the motion sets forth colorable claims which are not conclusively refuted by attachments to the order.

The appellant alleged colorable claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for fading to call eight witnesses, including the appellant, and for interfering with the appellant’s right to testify. Although the judge attached a portion of the trial transcript to his order, the attachment does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claims. See Farnbaugh v. State, 778 So.2d 369, 370-371 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Because these facially sufficient claims are not conclusively refuted by the attachment, the order is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings under rule 3.850.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ALLEN, C.J., BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 So. 2d 754, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6761, 2003 WL 21034532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack