Mann v. StateMann v. State
This is an appeal from the summary denial of a
The defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to
Appellant‘s first claim that conflicting accounts existed is not cognizable in a motion for post-conviction relief. See Whitlow v. State, 256 So.2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279 (1969). Furthermore, defense counsel stipulated to a prima facie case. The appellant‘s second claim, that the granting of several continuances was prejudicial to his case, is not cognizable on its merits either, as appellant‘s conclusions were not supported by any factual allegations. Dancy v. State, 175 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Appellant‘s third claim, that counsel did not devote ample time to the preparation of a defense, is refuted by the transcript of the hearing, when the pleas were made. The colloquy clearly reflects that the defendant was facing a more onerous punishment than what he actually received. Counsel made a reasonable judgment call in this case and his representation now being challenged was not outside the range of professionally competent assistance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
After extensive negotiations, both as to guilt and sentence, the appellant entered into plea contracts with the state as to the
Affirmed.