CHARLES DAVIS, 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 the trial court erred by failing to attach record portions refuting all of the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
This is the second appeal from the denial of a motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of tr…
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 Plea Bargaining cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second time this appeal from denial of a motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is before this court. The motion complained of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In our April 12, 1989, opinion, Davis v. State, 540 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), we found the motion was legally sufficient. Denial of a motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is proper where the trial court attaches portions of the record refuting the defendant’s allegations. Squires v. State, 513 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1987); Taylor v. State, 505 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Because the trial court failed to include those attachments, we reversed and remanded with directions to either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach to the order those portions of the record which refuted appellant’s claims.
On remand, the trial court chose the latter option. Once again we reverse and remand. We have reviewed all of appellant’s claims and find only three merit an evidentiary hearing as the attachments to the order do not refute those claims. On remand, the trial court is directed to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant’s trial attorney rendered him ineffective assistance of counsel as to his claims of defense counsel’s (1) failure to advise him of his right to a speedy trial and waiver of such without consent, (2) failure to discuss the possibility and nature of a plea bargain, and (3) urging appellant to plead guilty and then coercing him to go to trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION
ORDERED that Appellee’s February 27, 1990 motion for rehearing or clarification is granted, in part, as to failure to advise appellant of his right to speedy trial. Accordingly, the opinion of February 14, 1990, is modified to exclude that issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Young v. State, 608 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…mum mandatory term. Courts appear uniformly to hold that the failure of trial counsel to communicate or to communicate correctly the facts and merits of a plea bargain offered by the state may warrant relief to a criminal defendant. Davis v. State, 559 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Martens v. State, 517 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1988); Ginwright v. State, 466 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). See also Turner v. Tennessee, 858 F. 2d 1201 (6th Cir.1988), vacated on other gro…1 / 2
-
Gay Stoeffler v. Castagliola, 629 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…f process against both Castagliola and Riden I was invalid, the action against both should remain pending because service, although invalid, was made within the 120-day limit pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). In Payette v. Clark, 559 So. 2d 630, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), this court held that “[w]hen an invalid method of service is used, the proper procedure is to quash the service and permit the action to remain pending.” In this case, the first attempt at service was made within the 120-day…
-
Nationsbank, N.A. v. Ziner, 726 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…h service of process against both [defendants] was invalid, the action against both should remain pending because service, although invalid, was made within the 120-day limit pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). In Payette v. Clark, 559 So. 2d 630, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), this court held that “[w]hen [*367] an invalid method of service is used, the proper procedure is to quash the service and permit the action to remain pending.” In this case, the first attempt at service was made within the…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Squires v. State, 513 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1987)
- Davis v. State, 540 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Rubin Printempts v. State, 505 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Taylor v. State, 505 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)