LUIS COLON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In our opinion reversing a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, we reversed and remanded on the authority of State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996) and ordered the trial court to either attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the claim that appellant’s plea was involuntary based on his counsel’s misadvice, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue. On remand, the state, which had conceded the applicability of Leroux on appeal, filed a second response, basically ignoring Leroux. It attached to its pleading the plea colloquy which had been attached to the original order summarily denying relief. The trial court again denied the motion for postconviction relief, attaching the state’s response with the plea colloquy.
The state’s response simply referred to the plea colloquy which we previously held was insufficient to conclusively refute the claim in the motion. Thus, we conclude that our mandate has not been complied with, and we therefore order an evidentiary hearing on the issue.
WARNER, C.J., DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edwards v. Harris, 964 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ecessary to support the temporary injunction. See generally Milin v. N.W. Fla. Land, L.C., 870 So. 2d 135, 136-37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing temporary injunction because the trial court failed to make findings to support the order); Tom v. Russ, 752 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (remanding temporary injunction because the trial court failed to address the likelihood of success on the merits or considerations of public interest). In the instant case, the trial court failed to make any findings of f…
-
Weltman v. Riggs, 141 So. 3d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…nd afford a prompt evidentiary hearing to address the matters more fully, the holding in Richard, as well as precedent from this court, requires us to reverse and remand for the trial court to address this flaw in its order.1 See, e.g., Tom v. Russ, 752 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding: “The order on appeal fails to address likelihood of success on the merits or considerations of public interest. The order also fails to require a bond. Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court t…
-
Walton Cnty. v. Sandestin Invs., LLC, 148 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ased on a showing of the following criteria: “(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law;. (3) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of public interest.” Tom v. Russ, 752 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist [*173] Church, 721 So. 2d 735, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610, a trial court’s order granting injunctive relief must “specify the reasons…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)