LARRY JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1992-10-07
No. 92-1668
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur., GLICKSTEIN, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
606 So. 2d 454 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Record Attachments Legal Sufficiency Of Claims Involuntary Intoxication Defense Motion For Postconviction Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Record Attachments cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

Other
GLICKSTEIN, Chief Judge,

GLICKSTEIN, Chief Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

This is a pro se appeal from the summary denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.850, and the denial of his motion for rehearing. The motion alleged nine grounds, including: (3) involuntariness of plea, and ineffectiveness of trial counsel due to counsel’s failure to investigate the defense of involuntary intoxication, and (6) ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to advise of possible defense of involuntary intoxication. I concur that most of appellant’s claims do not warrant reversal; however, grounds (3) and (6), in my view, do not justify summary denial.

Grounds (3) and (6) appear legally sufficient and are not refuted by the record attachments. See McCoy v. State, 598 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), and Smith v. State, 461 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

I conclude the matter should be remanded to the trial court for either attachment of portions of the record conclusively showing that appellant is not entitled to relief on these claims, or for an evidentiary hearing.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Fiel v. Hoffman, 169 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
    …cedent’s will, reasoning: “the statute itself is clear”). The First and Third Districts have relied on Benson in construing the other subsections of the Slayer Statute dealing with life insurance benefits and joint tenancies. See Chatman v. Currie, 606 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“We hold as a matter of law that section 732.802 does not apply to an innocent contingent beneficiary’s entitlement to life insurance benefits resulting from the killing of the primary beneficiary by the insured who then co…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw