GILBERT W. HARDY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion.. We affirm without comment as to grounds 1, 3 and 4. However, as to ground 2 (involving allegations that Appellant’s counsel was ineffective for not relaying certain plea offers from the prosecutor), we reverse and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or record attachments showing conclusively that Appellant is entitled to no relief. See Wilson v. State, 647 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). On remand, we further direct the trial court to address grounds 5 through 8 of Appellant’s 3.850 motion, as it failed to do so in the order on appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
BOOTH, Judge,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
Although we must reverse as to ground 2, Wilson v. State, 647 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), we should not require that the trial court rule on grounds 5 through 8, grounds not asserted in the 3.850 motion itself.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. State, 677 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…der’s Hen where the appellant was not informed that he had a right to challenge the $450 assessment, see Brock v. State, 667 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and a 4 percent surcharge that was imposed without statutory authority. See. Klug v. State, 667 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). With regard to court costs in the amount of $255, the state acknowledges that the court orally pronounced costs only in the amount of $253. We thus strike $2. Further, we strike an additional $53 since we are unable to glean fro…
-
Burch v. State, 823 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…irement that Appellant pay for drug and alcohol testing1 and as to the 4% surcharge. See Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123, 125 (Fla.1996); State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589, 592-593 (Fla.1996); State v. Porchia, 716 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1998); Klug v. State, 667 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court must issue an amended written probation order, and it may not reimpose these special conditions. See Carter v. State, 787 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Justice, 674 So. 2d at 125 (Fla.1996). We…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 647 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)