Stephenson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stephenson v. State

79 So. 3d 880, 2012 WL 407156, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1934

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 2012

Docket5D11-3825

StatusPublished

This text of 79 So. 3d 880 (Stephenson 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

Stephenson v. State, 79 So. 3d 880, 2012 WL 407156, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1934 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Of the three claims he raised in his motion, we find that the denial of only one warrants reversal. In claim two, Appellant asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him not to testify at trial. Because the record does not adequately refute this legally sufficient claim, we reverse that part of the order summarily denying it and remand this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. See Ferrer v. State, 2 So.3d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Otherwise, we affirm the order under review.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Of the three claims he raised in his motion, we find that the denial of only one warrants reversal. In claim two, Appellant asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him not to testify at trial. Because the record does not adequately refute this legally sufficient claim, we reverse that part of the order summarily denying it and remand this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. See Ferrer v. State, 2 So.3d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Otherwise, we affirm the order under review.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 So. 3d 880, 2012 WL 407156, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephenson-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack