WILLIE JAMES MCCANTS, 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 trial court's summary denial of post-conviction relief because the order failed to append documentation refuting the appellant's allegations as required by Rule 3.850.
A trial court must append documentation to its order denying post-conviction relief that conclusively discloses why the defendant is not entitled to relief, or comply with Rule 3.850's requirements.
[1] A trial court denying a Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion must append documentation to its order that conclusively discloses the defendant is not entitled to relie…
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 intelligenceWillie James McCants filed a motion for post-conviction relief on November 26, 1986, and the trial court summarily denied it based on the files and re…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Willie James McCants appeals from the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The order states that:
The Defendant’s Motion for Post-Conviction Relief ... dated November 26, 1986; and the transcripts of the Plea colloquy on July 23, 1986, and the Sentencing hearing on August 15, 1986; were read and considered by the Court and the Court finds that there is no basis for the Defendant’s Motion and that his Motion is DENIED.
Although the trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing on the basis of the files and records before it, no document, contrary to the requirement of Rule 3.850, was appended to the order refuting the appellant’s allegations. West v. State, 455 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court. Following remand, the trial court is to support its order by attaching appropriate documentation conclusively disclosing that appellant is not entitled to relief. Failing that, the court shall comply with the pertinent provisions of Rule 3.850. If the court should again deny appellant’s motion, he has thirty days in which to appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…s be ordered to undergo counseling and “follow all the recommendations of his counselors.” Mr. Hastings, [*780] however, was not a party to the case, and consequently the trial court did not have jurisdiction over his activities. Silvers v. Silvers, 504 So. 2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that “the trial court had no jurisdiction to order ... spouses [who were not parties to a dissolution case] to attend classes and counseling”). III. CONCLUSION We vacate the trial court’s order modifying custody of…
-
Maya Winddancer v. Stein, 765 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…as specifically held that it was reversible error for the trial court to impose parenting classes and psychological counseling on the parties “in the absence of a motion or other notice and opportunity to be heard on the issues.” Silvers v. Silvers, 504 So. 2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Such a violation of due process constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Because the mother and child face the irreparable harm of compulsory psychological counseling rendered without notice or an…
-
Gifford v. State, 523 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…that the record “refutes defendant’s claim four different times.” Unfortunately, no supportive documentation was attached to that order, contrary to the requirement of Rule 3.850. West v. State, 455 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); McCants v. State, 504 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We reverse and remand this matter to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court is to support its order by attaching appropriate documentation conclusively exhibiting that Gifford is not entitled to relief. Failing that, the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fowler v. Honorable Uriel Blount, 455 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- West v. State, 455 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)