CHARLES OTIS STINYARD, 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 court reversed the summary denial of a post-conviction relief motion because the trial court failed to attach record portions supporting its ground for denial, requiring either proper summary denial with attached record excerpts or an evidentiary hearing on appeal.
A trial court must either attach portions of the record conclusively showing no entitlement to relief when summarily denying a Rule 3.850 motion, or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court summarily denying a Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion must attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show the movant is not…
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 Stinyard appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction relief motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investi…
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 Mental Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant raises two points. The first is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to investigate facts that would have supported an insanity plea. The second is that his guilty plea was not freely and voluntarily given because his mental capacity was diminished due to the withholding of his prescribed psychotropic medication. Either allegation, if true, would entitle appellant to relief. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it was identical to a rule 3.850 motion previously filed and heard. However, the trial court failed to attach those portions of the record which support the ground for denial.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order 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 motion. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See also 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, any aggrieved party must appeal the new ruling of the trial court.
Reversed.
OTT, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…t his guilty plea was not entered with a full understanding of the consequences because he was under the influence of a heavy dose of medication at the time of the plea. If true, this could constitute grounds to withdraw the plea. Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We have held that where claims such as this have been made the record must conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations before the court may deny the motion without a hearing. Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).…
-
Rivera v. State, 746 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…entire time he was in detention. We find that Rivera’s motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Reutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (citing Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). The trial court denied the motion, relying, in part, on the plea form signed by Rivera and the transcript of the plea colloquy. These attachments do not refute Rivera’s claim. The plea colloquy consisted of ten questions. Rive…
-
Vann v. State, 561 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…tion that Vann has filed a motion pursuant to rule 3.850. The trial court failed to attach to its order portions of the record and files that conclusively refute Vann’s allegation or that demonstrate this motion is successive. See Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Vann’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Vann is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)