ERNEST EUGENE WATKINS, 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.
Watkins appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion. The court held that while three of his five grounds were facially insufficient, two grounds challenging the legality of his sentence raised prima facie issues requiring either attachment of supporting documents or an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court erred by summarily denying the motion. Two of the five grounds—challenging whether some convictions were lesser included offenses and whether two mandatory minimum sentences were improperly imposed—raised prima facie grounds for relief that required either attachment of the charging instrument and trial transcript or an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is facially insufficient if allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are not adequately detailed.
[2] Matters reviewable on direct appeal from a judgment and sentence will not support a collateral attack via a motion for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the issue before this court is whether or not the motion was legally sufficient to require the trial court to attach portions of the file or record to the order, showing conclusively that appellant was not entitled to relief, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion”
Establishes the legal standard governing review of summary denials of post-conviction motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatkins was convicted and sentenced on five separate counts. He argued in his post-conviction motion that some counts constituted lesser included offe…
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 Legal Sufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1276] SHIVERS, Judge.
The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. On appeal, the issue before this court is whether or not the motion was legally sufficient to require the trial court to attach portions of the file or record to the order, showing conclusively that appellant was not entitled to relief, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1980).
Appellant has raised five-grounds for relief. We find three of these grounds to be facially insufficient. First, the allegations regarding ineffective assistance of appellant’s trial counsel are not adequately detailed in the pleading to require further inquiry by the lower court. Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981). Second, appellant has raised, as “Grounds 4 and 5,” matters which were reviewable on direct appeal from the judgment and sentence, and which will not support a collateral attack. See, Hargrave v. State, 396 So. 2d 1127 (Fla.1981); Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1980); Spenkelink v. State, 350 So. 2d 85 (Fla.1977); State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla.1972).
The two remaining grounds raised by appellant challenge the legality of his sentence. These issues are properly raised in a motion for post-conviction relief, and we find that the allegations made by appellant establish prima facie grounds for relief. Initially, appellant contends that he was convicted and sentenced on five separate counts, some of which contained lesser included offenses of the others. Appellant has listed the five offenses, but not the statutory sections under which he was convicted. From the face of appellant’s motion it appears that some of these crimes may be lesser included offenses of the others, depending upon the accusatory pleading and/or the evidence presented at trial. Thus, if appellant’s claim, that he was convicted and sentenced on lesser included offenses, is true, the convictions would be allowed to stand, but the sentences for the lesser included offenses would have to be vacated. State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.1981); State v. Monroe, 406 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.1981). However, it is impossible to determine the merit of appellant’s contentions without the aid of, at least, the charging instrument, and possibly portions of the trial transcript. Therefore, it was error for the lower court to fail to attach these supporting documents.
Appellant’s second contention regarding the illegality of his sentence is that the trial court improperly imposed two mandatory minimum three year sentences, pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, on the first two counts for which appellant was convicted. If the crime charged in the second count is a lesser included offense of the crime charged in the first count, the second mandatory sentence was improperly imposed, and would also have to be vacated. See, Foster v. State, 409 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Accordingly, the order of the court below is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for attachment of those portions of the file and record which conclusively show appellant is entitled to no relief; or for an evidentiary hearing.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 462 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…n regarding the alleged ineffective assistance so as to render the motion facially sufficient. If allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are not adequately detailed, further inquiry by the trial court is not required. See Watkins v. State, 413 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We find that Howard’s motion fails on this point. A movant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must fulfill these requirements: 1) the specific omission or overt act upon which the claim is based must be detailed i…
-
Fuller v. State, 444 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…on, if true, would entitle him to relief under Rule 3.850. However, it is impossible for us to determine the merit of his contentions without the aid of, at least, the charging documents), and possibly other portions of the record. Watkins v. State, 413 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Therefore, it was error for the trial court to fail to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach the necessary supporting documents to its order. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Fuller’s motion and…
-
Dart v. State, 415 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…e, 415 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1982). Here, however, it is impossible to determine the merits of appellant’s contentions without the aid of, at the very least, the charging instrument, and possibly portions of the record. Compare Watkins v. State, 413 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for attachment of those portions of the record which effectively refute appellant’s claim or for an evidentiary hearing upon his allegations. McCORD, MILLS and SHIVERS, J…
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Rivers, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Williams, 406 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1981)
- Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1980)
- Spenkelink v. State, 350 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1977)
- Lenson A. Hargrave v. State, 396 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1981)
- Foster v. State, 409 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)