RUSSELL D. RAINES, 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 summary denial of a postconviction relief motion because the trial judge failed to attach supporting documentation to refute the appellant's allegations of improper sentencing and broken attorney promises.
A trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's postconviction relief allegations when summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[1] When summarily denying a postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively…
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 Raines filed a postconviction relief motion claiming he received an improper guideline departure sentence and that his attorney made promise…
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 Guidelines Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant claims he received an improper guideline departure sentence and his attorney made various promises to him regarding his sentence and gain time. Although the trial judge relied on a plea agreement in denying the motion, he did not attach to his order the plea agreement, the plea hearing transcript or any other portion of the files or record to refute appellant’s allegations.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that appellant 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 appellant’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.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…motion is facially sufficient. Moreover, we find no justification for the trial court’s refusal to direct the return of the attache case and other items which the Tampa Police Department admits holding and is willing to relinquish. Cf. Jones v. Coe, 579 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse this portion of the trial court’s order and direct the court to exercise its inherent power and enter an order requiring the return of those items to Brown. We withhold formal issuance of a writ of mandamu…