State v. Seitz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Seitz

935 So. 2d 541, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9423, 2006 WL 1627515

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Seitz. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 1417 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 14, 2006·No. No. 3D05-1156·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The undisputed testimony of the defendant is that he would not have entered into his plea agreement if it were not for the misadvice he received from his trial counsel. Accordingly, the motion for relief filed by the defendant, pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, should have been granted. The cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of having the trial court grant said motion. The foregoing renders the appeal by the State moot.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The undisputed testimony of the defendant is that he would not have entered into his plea agreement if it were not for the misadvice he received from his trial counsel. Accordingly, the motion for relief filed by the defendant, pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, should have been granted. The cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of having the trial court grant said motion. The foregoing renders the appeal by the State moot.

Reversed and remanded.

State v. Seitz, 935 So. 2d 541, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9423, 2006 WL 1627515 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

935 So. 2d 541 (State v. Seitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.