DONALD VANN, 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 trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for postconviction relief without attaching record portions to refute the allegations or demonstrating the motion was successive.
Vann filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on erroneous advice to plead guilty. The trial court su…
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Vann appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 that raised two grounds, only one of which is facially sufficient. Vann alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that counsel erroneously advised him to plead to the charge of sexual battery where Vann denied the charge, there was no medical evidence to link him to the charge, and the state had advised defense counsel that the victim was unwilling to testify. This allegation, if true, might entitle Vann to relief.
The trial court summarily denied the motion, apparently on the basis that this was Vann’s third motion. While Vann admitted in this motion that he had previously filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), raising a guidelines error, there is no other indication 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 state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute Vann’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vann v. State, 569 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…al we held that the rule’s proscription of successive motions was not applicable in this instance. Turning to the merits of the motion, we found that Vann had set forth a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Vann v. State, 561 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). After remand, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion. Vann was not present for that hearing, nor was an attorney appointed to represent him. After hearing from the prosecutor and from Vann’s trial counsel, the court a…
-
Hernandez v. State, 563 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ever, we find we must reverse the imposition of statutory court costs because they were imposed without notice and an opportunity to object. See Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1989); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Harris v. State, 561 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The state may seek reassessment of the costs after proper notice and a hearing. Accordingly, this cause is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Dunn v. State, 577 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…withdraw his plea prior to sentencing. The trial court summarily denied the motion but failed to attach those portions of the record which support the grounds for denial. See Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Vann v. State, 561 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We therefore reverse and remand the trial court’s order for proceedings consistent herewith. BOOTH, SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Stinyard v. State, 476 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)