JAMES FULLER, JR., 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 trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for postconviction relief without attaching supporting documents or holding an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant was convicted of multiple offenses and sought postconviction relief, alleging some convictions might be lesser included offenses of othe…
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
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
James Fuller, Jr. challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Fuller was convicted of several offenses and sentenced on December 29, 1982. He contends that some of the crimes for which he was convicted may be lesser included offenses of his other convictions. This allegation, 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 remand the case to the trial court. On remand the court may either again summarily deny the motion and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show defendant is not entitled to relief, or it may hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the ground alleged in Fuller’s motion. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See also Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and VanBever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). To obtain further review Fuller must appeal the new ruling of the trial court.
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corry v. Meggs, 498 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e applied the general rule without discussion, e.g., Herrin v. Abbe, 55 Fla. 769, 46 So. 183, 185 (1908); Eastern Airlines v. Gellert, 431 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); and In re State Attorney’s Office Investigative Subpoena dated November 2,1983, 444 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The later two eases, although decided after the adoption of the Evidence Code in Florida, do not mention, Section 90.-502(2).4 The Florida Evidence Code defines the privilege and states specific exceptions to the privilege. Unli…
-
Wilder v. Wilder, 993 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…Associate Judge, Concurs in result only. . Similarly, in cases involving the attorney-client privilege, with few exceptions, “the identity of a client is not privileged.” In re State Attorney’s Office Investigative Subpoena Dated November 2, 1983, 444 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see also Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 431 So. 2d 329, 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that where Gellert sought names and addresses of parties whom attorney called long-distance, attorney-client privilege was not impl…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- VAN Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Watkins v. State, 413 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)