WILLIAM REGINALD HUNT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
WILLIAM REGINALD HUNT, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
764 So. 2d 908
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm that portion of the order summarily denying appellant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct. However, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting appellant’s claim that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him of the maximum penalty he faced if convicted. See Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.
BOOTH, ALLEN AND PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…t determined that merely asking the defendant if he wished to explain his behavior was insufficient to meet the requirement that the defendant be given an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. In Marshall v. State, 764 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we cited O’Neal, and again reversed an order of direct criminal contempt because the judge “failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence.” In the instant case appellant was neither informed…1 / 2
-
DE LA Portilla v. State, 142 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…CA 2004) (reversing contempt order because “appellant was neither informed that under the rule he could present mitigating circumstances, [*934] nor given a separate and distinct opportunity to present mitigating circumstances.”); Marshall v. State, 764 So. 2d 908, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing contempt order because trial court “failed to inquire as to whether appellant had any cause to show why he should not be adjudicated guilty of contempt and failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusi…
-
T.J.L. v. State, 139 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…t determined that merely asking the defendant if he wished to explain his behavior was insufficient to meet the requirement that the defendant be given an opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. In Marshall v. State, 764 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we cited O’Neal, and again reversed an order of direct criminal contempt because the judge “failed to give appellant an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence.” [*506] In this case the juvenile appellant was aske…
Authorities Cited
- Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)