MATTHEW R. HINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2017-05-31
No. CASE NO. 1D16-2638
WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
220 So. 3d 1242 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2017)


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. One of Appellant’s claims is that he involuntarily entered his plea out of a well-founded fear that his counsel would be unprepared at trial. The trial court observed that it appeared from the record that counsel was *1243prepared for trial, but the court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s state of preparation or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting this argument. Because this claim is colorable and not conclusively refuted by the attachments to the order, we reverse the denial of this claim and remand for further consideration of this claim only. E.g., Green v. State, 827 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Lanier v. State, 789 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), We otherwise affirm the order.

REVERSED in part arid REMANDED.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw