FREDDIE L. BROWN, 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.
Freddie Brown appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion seeking relief from his convictions for aggravated battery and burglary based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide a detailed written order explaining why Brown was entitled to no relief.
When a Rule 3.850 motion is legally sufficient on its face, the trial court must either hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if relief should be granted or, if the case file conclusively shows the petitioner is entitled to no relief, deny relief in a detailed written order that attaches portions of the record to sustain that determination. The trial court's failure to take either action requires reversal and remand.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is legally sufficient if its allegations, if true, would entitle the movant to relief.
[2] If a motion for post-conviction relief is legally sufficient on its face, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing unless the case file and record conclusively sh…
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 intelligence“Where the motion is legally sufficient on its face, it is the duty of the trial court to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 by holding an evidentiary hearing to determine if the relief should be granted.”
Establishes the mandatory duty of the trial court when a Rule 3.850 motion is legally sufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown filed a pro se motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 challenging his convictions for aggravated battery and burglary. He alleged…
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 Conclusive Refutation By Record cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
The appellant filed a pro se motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 seeking relief from the judgment and sentence and addressing matters which can be raised in a collateral attack. He sought to have his convictions of aggravated battery and burglary vacated and to have a new trial because he alleged he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The appellant’s motion is legally sufficient and, if true, would entitle him to relief.
Where the motion is legally sufficient on its face, it is the duty of the trial court to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 by holding an evidentiary hearing to determine if the relief should be granted. However, if the case file and record conclusively show petitioner is entitled to no relief, then the court should deny relief in an order specifically setting out the reasons for the denial, and it should attach portions of the case file and record to sustain its determination. Neither action was taken by the court below. Therefore the order denying appellant’s motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions within 60 days to (a) attach that portion of the case file and record which refutes appellant’s allegations or (b) conduct an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Gunter v. State, 380 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Lesley v. State, 370 So. 2d 85 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Payne v. State, 362 So. 2d 688 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). If the trial judge is unable to conduct such hearing, the chief circuit judge shall reassign the case.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeSANTIS v. State, 400 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order.” Rule 3.850, Fla.R. Crim.P. Benton v. State, 401 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1981) [1981 F.L.W. 765]; Rice v. State, 400 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1980); Brown v. State, 390 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Battle v. State, 388 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Gunter v. State, 380 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Gunn v. State, 378 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The motion of appellant is sufficient on its face and seeks to corr…
-
Morman v. State, 458 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Wade v. State, 402 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Benton v. State, 401 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Stephens v. State, 399 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Young v. State, 397 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Brown v. State, 390 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Battle v. State, 388 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).…
-
Husman v. State, 660 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…the admission of evidence that Husman was a nudist who participated in nudist activities. We affirm. Rather than review the trial record and attach portions for appellate review, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. See Brown v. State, 390 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). At the hearing, the trial judge heard the testimony of the assistant state attorney who prosecuted the case and Husman’s trial attorney.1 The trial counsel explained to the court his trial tactics concerning evidence of Husman’s…
Authorities Cited
- Payne v. State, 362 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Arlen Kim Lesley v. State, 370 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Gunter v. State, 380 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Brown v. State, 380 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)