Zipperer v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zipperer v. Singletary

693 So. 2d 122, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4985, 1997 WL 236136

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1209

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 122 (Zipperer v. Singletary) 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

Zipperer v. Singletary, 693 So. 2d 122, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4985, 1997 WL 236136 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of an order denying his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850, seeking post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the motion as not properly sworn, without reaching the merits. We conclude that, although the motion incorporates a memorandum of law, the form, and the unnotarized oath at the conclusion of the document, substantially comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. We conclude, further, that the allegations of the motion are sufficient to state claims for relief based upon ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to inform the trial court that appellant was under the influence of psychotropic medication when he entered his pleas, and (2) failing to inform appellant that he had a viable defense of voluntary intoxication. Accordingly, we reverse, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of an order denying his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850, seeking post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the motion as not properly sworn, without reaching the merits. We conclude that, although the motion incorporates a memorandum of law, the form, and the unnotarized oath at the conclusion of the document, substantially comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. We conclude, further, that the allegations of the motion are sufficient to state claims for relief based upon ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to inform the trial court that appellant was under the influence of psychotropic medication when he entered his pleas, and (2) failing to inform appellant that he had a viable defense of voluntary intoxication. Accordingly, we reverse, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 122, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4985, 1997 WL 236136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zipperer-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack