FRANK LEE ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1985-06-27
No. BE-273
BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
471 So. 2d 661 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Laches Motion For Postconviction Relief Postconviction Relief Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Laches cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
BARFIELD, Judge.

BARFIELD, Judge.

Frank Lee Anderson appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The first of the trial court’s grounds for summary denial of the motion, that all of the issues raised in the motion could have been raised in a prior 3.850 motion filed three months before, is clearly in error. As to the court’s second ground for summary denial of the motion, that appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “is without merit,” although this finding may be supported by the record, the trial court’s order is unaccompanied by any attachments demonstrating the correctness of the finding.

The cause is therefore remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing, for attachment of those portions of the record conclusively showing that appellant is entitled to no relief, or, if the record has been destroyed, for a determination by the trial judge of whether the state has been prejudiced to the extent that application of the doctrine of laches should be applied to bar appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Frazier v. State, 447 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Remp v. State, 248 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).

BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Simmons v. State, 485 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
    …f time between the events complained of and the filing of the motion to vacate. Thus, should the trial court elect to schedule a hearing, conceivably it could find that Simmons’ motion should be [*477] barred by laches. See, e.g., Anderson v. State, 471 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The doctrine of laches requires proof of two elements: First, there must be inordinate delay on the part of the moving party, and second, the state must be prejudiced by this delay. Remp v. State, 248 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 19…
  • Tedder v. State, 495 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
    …review of the sworn allegations in petitioner’s motion, we find no specific factual allegations in regard to deficient conduct by counsel depriving petitioner of an exculpatory benefit so as to justify an evidentiary hearing. See Anderson v. State, 471 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Abies v. State, 404 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Affirmed. DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.…
  • Finney v. State, 502 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
    …review of the sworn allegations in petitioner’s motion, we find no specific factual allegations in regard to deficient conduct by counsel depriving petitioner of an exculpatory benefit so as to justify an evidentiary hearing. See Anderson v. State, 471 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Ables v. State, 404 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).” Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the verdict, adjudication of guilt and sentences thereon, be and the same are hereby affirmed and the order denying the 3.850 motion…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw