JAMES WHITMAR CHAMBERS, 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.
Trial court erred in summarily denying appellant's Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion as repetitive when prior motions were for different relief and lacked proper evidentiary hearing.
A trial court cannot summarily deny a Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion as repetitive or res judicata merely because a prior motion for modification of sentence raised some identical issues, without conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions conclusively showing the defendant is not entitled to relief.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach conclusive record portions when ruling on a Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion, and cannot summarily den…
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 Chambers filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied it as repetitive a…
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
BARFIELD, Judge.
The trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 states that appellant “filed an identical motion which has previously been denied on October 25, 1988, and the Court finds that the current Motion is repetitive, redundant, and res judicata.” However, the record indicates that the only motions previously denied by the trial court were a motion for modification of the sentence which the trial court summarily denied without attachments on June 29, 1988, and motions for appointment of counsel and to obtain sentencing transcripts in order that appellant might file the motion for post-conviction relief at issue here, which were denied on October 25, 1988.
The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for post-conviction relief on the ground that an identical motion had previously been denied. While the motion for modification of the sentence raised some of the same issues, it was not treated as a motion for post-conviction relief and was summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing. The order is REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for determination of whether the motion for post-conviction relief is legally sufficient on its face, and if so, for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record conclusively showing that appellant is not entitled to post-conviction relief.
BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.