CHARLES OFFORD, 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.
Trial court's summary denial of post-conviction relief motion for ineffective assistance of counsel was reversed because the court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions conclusively refuting the allegation.
A trial court cannot summarily deny a Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel without either conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions that conclusively refute the allegation.
[1] A trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion or attach record portions conclusively refuting the allegations before sum…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 his trial attorney failed to call witnesses who would have presented favorable testimony.…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s singular point in his motion alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel through his attorney’s failure to call witnesses who would have presented testimony favorable to appellant. If this allegation is true, appellant might be entitled to post-conviction relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s allegation.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion, and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegation raised in appellant’s motion. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See also Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 No. 83-35 (Fla. 2d DCA, Feb. 16, 1983); Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). To obtain further review in this cause, either aggrieved party must appeal the new ruling of the trial court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Goral v. State, 553 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…order, and (b) the order, unlike the instant motion, must be predicated on sworn proof and must apprise the defendant that he is being charged with indirect criminal contempt. Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 425-26 (Fla.1977); Paris v. Paris, 427 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Deter v. Deter, 353 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Second, the defendant received only two actual working days notice of the contempt hearing and was therefore not afforded a reasonable time for preparation of his defens…
-
Yilka de Castro v. Scorpio de Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…must be informed in the show cause order whether he is being charged with direct or indirect civil or criminal contempt and, if he was being charged with indirect criminal contempt, the order must recite facts constituting contempt); Paris v. Paris, 427 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(holding that receipt of a motion for contempt and notice of hearing, rather than formal pleadings required by the rule governing indirect criminal contempt procedures, is insufficient for purpose of apprising one to be prepared t…
-
Brown v. State, 595 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…the former wife’s petition, which did provide a statement of facts, appellant contends it nevertheless “was little more than a notice” which, standing alone, is insufficient to initiate proceedings for indirect criminal contempt. See Paris v. Paris, 427 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Though he concedes no objection was lodged below, noncompliance with the rule has been deemed “fundamental error.” Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We find no deficiency in the procedure utilized by the trial…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- VAN Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)