From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 26, 1986
485 So. 2d 877 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 86-449.

March 26, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, M. William Graybill, J.


Arnett King appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse.

King alleges that a demand for speedy trial was filed, but that trial counsel failed to move for discharge after sixty days had expired. If true, this could constitute ineffective assistance. See, e.g., Bradfield v. State, 466 So.2d 273 (Fla.2d DCA 1985).

We remand this case with directions either to grant King a hearing on his motion or to attach sufficient portions of the record to demonstrate conclusively that King is not entitled to relief. If the trial court again denies the motion, King must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.

Reversed.

GRIMES and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

King v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 26, 1986
485 So. 2d 877 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

King v. State

Case Details

Full title:ARNETT O'HARA KING, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Mar 26, 1986

Citations

485 So. 2d 877 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Roesch v. State

In a separate claim of ineffective assistance, Roesch complains that counsel mishandled the speedy trial…

Constantine v. State

However, we believe analogy is appropriate to the alleged failure of counsel to recognize and avail himself…