Zatler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zatler v. State

475 So. 2d 983, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2153, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15817

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 17, 1985

DocketNo. 85-1705

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 475 So. 2d 983 (Zatler 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

Zatler v. State, 475 So. 2d 983, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2153, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15817 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order summarily denying appellant’s second motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which order was rendered final upon the denial of a rehearing motion. Appellant’s motion contends, inter alia, that his appointed counsel was ineffective 1) in incorrectly advising him of the maximum sentence which could be imposed and 2) in failing to move to dismiss the charges based on the state’s alleged violations of appellant’s right to a speedy trial and right against double jeopardy. Additionally, he contends the sentence imposed was in excess of that allowed by law.

We have carefully considered the Rule 3.850 motion, the state’s response to this court’s order to show cause and the record on appeal and have determined the record before us does not show conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings under Rule 3.850. Fla.R. App.P. 9.140(g).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order summarily denying appellant’s second motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which order was rendered final upon the denial of a rehearing motion. Appellant’s motion contends, inter alia, that his appointed counsel was ineffective 1) in incorrectly advising him of the maximum sentence which could be imposed and 2) in failing to move to dismiss the charges based on the state’s alleged violations of appellant’s right to a speedy trial and right against double jeopardy. Additionally, he contends the sentence imposed was in excess of that allowed by law.

We have carefully considered the Rule 3.850 motion, the state’s response to this court’s order to show cause and the record on appeal and have determined the record before us does not show conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings under Rule 3.850. Fla.R. App.P. 9.140(g).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 So. 2d 983, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2153, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zatler-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack