EDWARD HOGAN, 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.
The court held that the trial court's denial of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was affirmed, but the denial of the sentencing claims required remand.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief may be summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing if the grounds asserted have been previously litigated and denied.
[2] A prior order denying a motion for post-conviction relief must attach a copy of the prior motion or relevant portions of the files and records to conclusively show the mo…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing. The trial court denied the motion without…
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 Sentencing Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellant appeals from the trial judge’s summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief. Several grounds were asserted in appellant’s motion. First, appellant asserted that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his public defender failed to appeal within the requisite time. Appellant also contended that his sentence was improper because it required his term to be spent “in hard labor” and because he was given credit for only 277 of 321 days spent in county jail prior to sentencing. The lower court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. As rationale for the decision, the court stated that a motion on the same grounds had already been filed with the court and denied.
Although a copy of the prior motion was not attached to the lower court’s order as required by Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, on request by this court the lower court forwarded a copy of the prior order with an attached affidavit. A review of the earlier order and affidavit shows that appellant has already sought relief based upon an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. As to this portion of appellant’s motion, the lower court is affirmed.
With regard to appellant’s claim that he was improperly sentenced, the prior order does not indicate if appellant made such an allegation in his earlier motion. We cannot make a determination on whether the improper sentencing claims were stated in a previous motion without actually reading that earlier motion. Since it was not attached to the order, we must remand to the trial court with instructions to amend the order appealed from by attaching a copy of appellant’s prior motion to it or by attaching portions of the files and records which will satisfy Rule 3.850.
AFFIRMED, in part. REMANDED, in part, with instructions to attach portions of the files and records which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief.
WENTWORTH, J., and WOODIE A. LILES, (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Slattery v. State, 433 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…850. Therefore the order denying the appellant’s motion is appropriate on the authority of: Thompson v. State, 410 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1982); State v. Piehl, 184 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1966); Mathis v. State, 419 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hogan v. State, 388 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Neal v. State, 349 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Thomas v. State, 234 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Affirmed.…