From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 14, 1984
447 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. AW-473.

March 14, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Duval County, Donald R. Moran, J.

Ronald G. Wright, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.


Wright contends the trial court erred in denying his Rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing. His motion alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, failure of the trial court to establish a factual basis for his guilty plea, and his plea of guilty was coerced. We affirm.

The record furnished us clearly shows that before the trial court accepted Wright's plea of guilty, pursuant to plea bargaining, it determined from Wright, while he was under oath, that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney, that a factual basis for the plea was established, and that his plea was not coerced.

In addition, the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel do not follow the guidelines laid down in Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981).

AFFIRMED.

WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 14, 1984
447 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Wright v. State

Case Details

Full title:RONALD G. WRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Mar 14, 1984

Citations

447 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

PUIG v. STATE

Appellant, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion…

Dunkum v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

See Attachment 3. Therefore, as Defendant is not alleging affirmative misadvice by his attorney, the claim is…