BARRY HOFFMAN, 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.
A death row inmate appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction motion and his denial of access to state attorney records. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court must provide specific rationale and attach relevant record portions when denying such motions, and that the inmate was entitled to access the requested records under chapter 119.
The trial court's summary denial of the rule 3.850 motion was improper because it failed to state any rationale and did not attach specific portions of the record refuting each claim. A full hearing under rule 3.850 is required. Additionally, Hoffman is entitled to access the state attorney records under chapter 119 and prior Supreme Court precedent.
[1] A trial court must attach specific portions of the record that directly refute each claim raised in a motion for postconviction relief when denying the motion without a h…
[2] A trial court's order denying postconviction relief must state a rationale based on the record and attach the relevant portions of the record that conclusively show relie…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Specifically, unless the trial court's order states a rationale based on the record, the court is required to attach those specific parts of the record that directly refute each claim raised.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for proper denial of rule 3.850 motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarry Hoffman, a prisoner under sentence of death, was convicted of murders in a prior case decided in Hoffman v. State, 474 So.2d 1178 (Fla.1985). He…
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 Brady Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
KOGAN, Justice.
Barry Hoffman, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals from a summary denial of relief in the circuit court requested under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and a denial of access to records held by the state attorney. The facts of the crime are stated in Hoffman’s prior direct appeal to this Court. Hoffman v. State, 474 So. 2d 1178 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. In the case below, Hoffman came forward with allegations based on affidavits and other information clearly establishing colorable claims under rule 3.850. For example, he has alleged that the state withheld the names of other persons who purportedly confessed to the murders of which Hoffman was convicted. At argument, the state conceded that such a claim, if valid, would require relief under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Hoffman also has alleged claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the failure of counsel to be present when Hoffman testified in the separate trial of his co-conspirator. Without reaching the merits of any of these claims, we nevertheless believe that a hearing is required under rule 3.850. In its summary order, the trial court stated no rationale for its rejection of the present motion. It failed to attach to its order the portion or portions of the record conclusively showing that relief is not required and failed to find that the allegations were inadequate or procedurally barred.
The state argued that the entire record is attached to the order in the Court file before us, thus fulfilling this requirement. However, such a construction of the rule would render its language meaningless. The record is attached to every case before this Court. Some greater degree of specificity is required. Specifically, unless the trial court’s order states a rationale based on the record, the court is required to attach those specific parts of the record that directly refute each claim raised.
We thus have no choice but to reverse the order under review-and remand for a full hearing conforming to rule 3.850.
Finally, Hoffman also petitions us to reverse a denial of access to state attorney records he requested under chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1987). At argument the state conceded that this issue was resolved in favor of Hoffman by our recent opinions in State v. Kokal, 562 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1990), and Provenzano v. Dugger, 561 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1990). Under these opinions, Hoffman clearly is entitled to access these records.
We reverse the court below and remand for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion and with Kokal and Provenza-no. On remand, the trial court shall allow Hoffman thirty days to amend his petition, computed from the date the state delivers to Hoffman the records to which he is entitled under chapter 119.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH, BARKETT and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (45 total)
-
Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)…conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient. See, e.g., Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1996); Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1993); Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla.1990); Holland v. State, 503 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1987); Lemon v. State, 498 So. 2d 923 (Fla.1986); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. The defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case based upon a legally valid claim. Mere conclusory allegatio…
-
Asay v. State, 769 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2000)…which he asserts the trial court improperly summarily denied. Asay argues that the trial court’s order denying an evidentiary hearing on these claims is insufficient because it does not contain attachments of the record, relying on Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990). However, this Court’s cases decided since Hoffman have made clear that an order denying an evidentiary hearing is sufficient if it sets forth a clear rationale explaining why the motion and record conclusively refute each claim. See…
-
Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1993)…1 So. 2d 1354, 1355 (Fla.1984). To support summary denial without a hearing, a trial court must either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion. Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990) (Hoffman I). The circuit court’s first reason for summary denial was that Anderson failed to satisfy rule 3.850(c), which states that a motion “shall be under oath.” Anderson argues that the oath requirement should apply only when a…
Previewing 3 of 45 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Provenzano v. Dugger, 561 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Kokal, 562 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1990)
- Hoffman v. State, 474 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1985)