FLOYD MORGAN, 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.
Floyd Morgan appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly considered the state's response and denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing when the motion and case records did not conclusively show Morgan was not entitled to relief.
The trial court's procedure violated Rule 3.850. Under the rule as it existed at the time of filing, the court's initial consideration was limited to the motion and case files and could not include a state response or factual determinations without an evidentiary hearing. Because the motion and files did not conclusively show Morgan was not entitled to relief, an evidentiary hearing was required.
[1] A court must grant a prompt hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is…
[2] A court's initial consideration of a motion for post-conviction relief is limited to the motion and the files and records of the case.
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“Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the prosecuting attorney of the court, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”
The governing language of Rule 3.850 establishing the standard for when an evidentiary hearing must be granted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorgan filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850. The trial court identified disputed factual matters that were not conclusively reso…
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 Rule Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*682] PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on appeal from the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. This Court has jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. At the time of the filing of appellant’s motion, rule 3.850 provided in pertinent part as follows:
Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the prosecuting attorney of the court, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that ... there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resen-tence him or grant him a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
This rule limits the court’s initial consideration to the motion and the “files and records of the case.” It does not contemplate the consideration of a response by the state nor any resolution of factual matters without an evidentiary hearing.*
In the present case, the court found disputed factual matters not conclusively resolved by “the files and records of the case” and ordered a response by the state. The court then considered the response and denied the motion without a hearing. Such a procedure was not authorized by the rule under the circumstances.
We find that without reference to the state’s response the motion, considered with the files and records of the case, does not conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to any relief. We therefore reverse the order of the circuit court and remand with directions that the court hold an evidentiary hearing and thereafter render an appropriate judgment.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
*
The rule as amended subsequent to the filing of the motion in this case does provide for a response by the state and consideration thereof by the court in determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required. The Florida Bar Re Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 3.850), 460 So. 2d 907, 908 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holland v. State, 503 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1987)…BARKETT, Judge. We have for review Holland v. State, 484 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which conflicts with Morgan v. State, 475 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The opinion of the district court below purports to apply the doctrine of harmless error to an erroneous denial of a defendant’s right to an evidentiary hearing under Florida Rule of…1 / 2
-
Morgan v. State, 515 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1987)…103 S.Ct. 473, 74 L.Ed.2d 621 (1982). The appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied without hearing. This Court reversed that order and remanded the case to the trial court to take evidence on the motion. Morgan v. State, 475 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1985). On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and then denied the motion. The appellant now appeals the order denying his Rule 3.850 motion. On appeal, the appellant asserts two arguments for reversal. The first argument is tha…
-
Holland v. State, 484 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ER CURIAM. Mr. Holland’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was denied without an evidentia-ry hearing. Holland appeals, contending that he was entitled to a hearing under authority of Morgan v. State, 475 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1985). Facially, Holland is correct. However our review leaves us convinced that the error was harmless according to applicable criteria and that no purpose would be served by remanding for a hearing. Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla.1981)…
Authorities Cited
- THE FLA. BAR RE AMENDMENT TO RULES OF CRIM. PROCEDURE (RULE 3.850), 460 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1984)