From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Neal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 4, 1994
636 So. 2d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Summary

rejecting an argument that the trial court erred when it failed to require the movant's presence at the hearing on his motion for postconviction relief, citing rule 3.850(e)

Summary of this case from Brown v. State

Opinion

No. 93-3137.

May 4, 1994.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Richard D. Eade, Judge.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melvina Racey Flaherty, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Anthony Neal a/k/a Ward Neal appeals from an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

We find no merit in appellant's argument that the trial court erred when it failed to require his presence at the hearing on his motion for post-conviction relief. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850(e); Clark v. State, 491 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1986). The state, however, concedes the record does not refute appellant's claim for post-conviction relief on the grounds that his plea was involuntary and that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The state also concedes that since appellant asserted a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel by the public defender's office, the trial court erred when it reappointed that office to represent him in the post-conviction relief matter. The state further concedes that appellant's conviction of driving with a suspended license must be vacated since he did not plead to this charge. We agree with the state's concessions of error. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant's motion for post-conviction relief and remand this cause to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to enter an order vacating appellant's conviction of driving with a suspended license.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DELL, C.J., and HERSEY and STONE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Neal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 4, 1994
636 So. 2d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

rejecting an argument that the trial court erred when it failed to require the movant's presence at the hearing on his motion for postconviction relief, citing rule 3.850(e)

Summary of this case from Brown v. State

rejecting an argument that the trial court erred when it failed to require the movant's presence at the hearing on his motion for postconviction relief, citing rule 3.850(e)

Summary of this case from Brown v. State
Case details for

Neal v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY NEAL A/K/A WARD NEAL, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: May 4, 1994

Citations

636 So. 2d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

Neal v. State

Additionally, since the trial court failed to follow our prior mandate, we again direct the trial court to…

Brown v. State

Thus, Brown's argument has no merit. See Clark v. State, 491 So. 2d 545, 546 (Fla. 1986) (stating that…