CLARENCE BRIAN LEBLANC, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Clarence Brian LeBlanc appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion raising six grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial as to grounds four and five, but reversed and remanded grounds one, two, three, and six because the trial court failed to attach record excerpts necessary for meaningful appellate review.
The appellate court reversed the summary denial as to grounds one, two, three, and six because the record failed to conclusively show that LeBlanc was entitled to no relief. The trial court was required on remand to either attach record excerpts that conclusively demonstrate no relief was warranted, or grant LeBlanc an evidentiary hearing on these four grounds.
“On appeal from a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion we are compelled to reverse unless the post-conviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the standard of review for Rule 3.850 appeals requiring reversal unless conclusive entitlement to no relief is shown.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeBlanc filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising six alleged deficiencies of trial counsel. The trial court summarily den…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
This is an appeal by the appellant, Clarence Brian LeBlanc, from an order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion was based on six alleged deficiencies of trial counsel. We affirm without further comment the summary denial with respect to grounds four and five. We reverse, however, with respect to grounds one, two, three and six.
On appeal from a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion we are compelled to reverse unless the post-conviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Although the trial court in denying grounds one, two, three and six of the motion made reference to parts of the transcript or other record documents, it did not attach those record excerpts to the order for us to examine. Without that documentation we are unable to give meaningful review to the claims of the appellant.
Accordingly, because the record before us fails to make a showing that the appellant is conclusively entitled to no relief, we reverse the order as it applies to grounds one, two, three and six, and remand to the trial court to attach record excerpts that conclusively demonstrate that Mr. LeBlanc is entitled to no relief. Failing that, the trial court must accord Mr. LeBlanc an evidentiary hearing on these four grounds. See Ingram v. State, 990 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA2008).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rutig v. State, 18 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…id not attach to its order the portions of the record that refute Appellant’s claim. Therefore, we are prevented from concluding that Appellant’s claim has been conclusively refuted by the record. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); LeBlanc v. State, 997 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Accordingly, the instant matter is remanded to the trial court for the attachment of records which conclusively refute Appellant’s claim that Appellant is entitled to additional jail credit. REVERSED AND REMANDED. MONACO,…
-
White v. State, 19 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…rt has failed to include a copy of the transcript pages referenced in its order and, therefore, we are prevented from concluding that Appellant’s claim has been conclusively refuted by the record. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); LeBlanc v. State, 997 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Accordingly, the instant matter is remanded to the trial court for the attachment of records which conclusively refute Appellant’s first claim or, alternatively, in order for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing o…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 990 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)