Henderson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 23, 1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-10-23

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1989

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Appellant has alleged he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. He says his lawyer never told him he could be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines and that if so he would be entitled to a lesser sentence. See also Hendrix v. State, 491 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Because the allegations are sufficient, we quash the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing and order thereon.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 504 So. 2d 54 - Henderson v. State

Relies on 491 So. 2d 1172 - Hendrix v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-10-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAUKSCH, Judge.

¶1This matter is before the court upon a denial of a motion for post-conviction relief. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.

¶2Appellant has alleged he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. He says his lawyer never told him he could be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines and that if so he would be entitled to a lesser sentence. See also Hendrix v. State, 491 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

¶3Because the allegations are sufficient, we quash the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing and order thereon.

¶4REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.