HENRY A. HARDEN, 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 held that the proper procedure when a post-conviction relief motion is denied without a hearing is to reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to either attach supporting documentation or hold a hearing.
Appellant appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The state requested jurisdiction be relinquished to allow the trial co…
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 Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellant Henry A. Harden appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand with directions.
Since our examination of the allegations of the motion revealed that it demonstrated a facially sufficient claim for relief, we requested the Attorney General’s office to file a brief in response to the motion. In lieu of a brief, the state filed a motion asking this court to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for a thirty-day period for preparation of the appropriate documentation to support the trial court’s order, and for preparation of an amended order denying appellant’s motion.
In making this request, the state recognized that since the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion was not predicated on the legal insufficiency of the allegations, it was incumbent upon the trial court to attach those portions of the files and records which conclusively demonstrate that appellant is entitled to no relief. We decline the state’s request, finding the proper procedure in such cases is to reverse and remand with directions to comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Green v. State, 525 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Russell v. State, 521 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Knight v. State, 517 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); House v. State, 511 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hall v. State, 511 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court is directed to support the order by attaching appropriate documentation conclusively demonstrating that appellant is entitled to no relief or to provide the required hearing in accordance with the rule.
SMITH, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keller v. State, 551 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…e facial sufficiency of appellant’s motion. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, or to attach those portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that appellant was entitled to no relief. Harden v. State, 528 So. 2d 544 (Pla. 1st DCA 1988); Russell v. State, 521 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Knight v. State, 517 So. 2d 87 (Pla. 1st DCA 1987); Hall v. State, 511 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Havis v. State, 506 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). This case is REVERSE…
-
Wenceslao Manuel Lora v. State, 565 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…s denial was not predicated on the legal sufficiency of the allegations, it was incumbent upon the trial court to attach those portions of the files and records which conclusively demonstrate that appellant is entitled to no relief. Harden v. State, 528 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). This, the trial court failed to do. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Our disposition of appellant’s points I a…
-
German v. State, 596 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…t predicated on the legal insufficiency of the allegations, it is incumbent upon the court to attach those portions of the files and records which conclusively demonstrate the prisoner is entitled to no relief. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850; Harden v. State, 528 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Robinson v. State, 549 So. 2d 1181, 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lora v. State, 565 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Some of the allegations raised by appellant in this case indicate a possible entitlement to relief,…
Authorities Cited
- COX v. State, 517 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Colin H. Russell v. State, 521 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Hall v. State, 511 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Guarine v. Guarine, 525 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Green v. State, 525 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- House v. State, 511 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)