Tucker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tucker v. State

449 So. 2d 406, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12889

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tucker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 417 So. 2d 1006 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 4, 1984·No. No. 82-2275·Published

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 [407]*407on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing on appeal that he was entitled to appointment of counsel for the hearing on his 3.850 motion. ‘ We affirm.

Defendant’s petition was insufficient to warrant a hearing under the criteria of Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981), and, therefore, defendant was not entitled to appointment of counsel. See Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979).

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 [407]*407on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing on appeal that he was entitled to appointment of counsel for the hearing on his 3.850 motion. ‘ We affirm.

Defendant’s petition was insufficient to warrant a hearing under the criteria of Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981), and, therefore, defendant was not entitled to appointment of counsel. See Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979).

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

Tucker v. State, 449 So. 2d 406, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12889 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

449 So. 2d 406 (Tucker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related