Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dupriest v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 27, 2018No. 1D16-5702Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWinokur, J.

I agree with the majority that the order must be reversed. I would reverse the court's order because it failed to attach records that conclusively refute one of DuPriest's postconviction grounds. I would only order an evidentiary hearing regarding the part of DuPriest's ground B that asserted that he would not have pleaded guilty if counsel had advised him of the "heat of passion" defense. I would hold that the remainder of DuPriest's ground B, as well as ground D, could have been conclusively refuted by the record.*

I specifically disagree that the "circumstances surrounding this case"…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Franqui v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2011
  2. Montero v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
  3. Stimus v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
  4. Cobb v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API