PAUL HAYDEN GARRETT, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Herrington v. State, 207 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
  …e, however, there is a positive statement from the attorney involved declaring that he did not represent appellant at the revocation of probation hearing. Under these circumstances an evidentiary hearing was mandatory. Gentry v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 531, 532. We, therefore, reverse the order denying appellant’s motion and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing upon his allegation that he [*325] was not afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel at the time of revocation and sentencing. Rev…
• Smith v. State, 198 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
  …ted Quillian, consequently the appellate court reversed the order of the trial court denying Quillian’s Rule 1 motion without a hearing and remanded the cause for a hearing on the matter. A similar situation was before this Court in Gentry v. State, 186 So. 2d 531 (Fla.App.1st, 1966), although the record there contained a statement from counsel that he did not represent Gentry but was employed by and represented another defendant. In view of the allegations made in the Rule 1 motion we feel that a hearing sh…

Authorities Cited

• Whitney v. State, 184 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
• The State of Fla. on the relation of the Borden Co. v. Langley, 184 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)