JOSEPH CHARLES SPADARO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were facially insufficient, but claims that the plea was involuntary and the sentence illegal were not conclusively refuted by the record.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, an involuntary plea, and an illegal sentence.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Charles Spadaro appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.850 and this opinion.
We agree with the trial court that Spada-ro’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are facially insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Thus, that part of the trial court’s order is affirmed.
We must, however, reverse the summary denial of Spadaro’s allegations that his plea was involuntary and that his sentence is illegal. Although the trial court denied these claims without an evidentiary hearing, but did attach portions of the record, we conclude that the attachments do not conclusively refute Spadaro’s allegations. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial court’s order which denied Spadaro’s allegations that his plea was involuntary and that his sentence is illegal. Upon remand, unless the files and records conclusively show that Spadaro is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court is to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If an evidentiary hearing is not necessary, the trial court is to attach to its order sufficient record to overcome Spadaro’s contentions. If the court should deny Spa- daro’s motion, he has thirty days in which to appeal.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spadaro v. State, 539 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…summary denial of his postconviction relief motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We previously reviewed the circuit court’s summary denial of Spadaro’s motion and affirmed in part and reversed in part. Spadaro v. State, 528 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). On remand, the court again summarily denied the motion and provided attachments from the record in support of a portion of the ruling. We again affirm in part and reverse in part. We agree with the trial court that Spada-ro’s c…