MICHAEL AKINS, 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.
Michael Akins appealed the summary denial of a postconviction motion claiming he lacked the requisite convictions for habitual offender treatment. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to attach critical documents (a presentence investigation report) to its order denying relief, preventing conclusive review of Akins' claims.
The trial court's summary denial was reversed and remanded because the record did not conclusively establish that Akins was entitled to no relief. The court found that critical documents allegedly attached to the postconviction motion were missing from the record, preventing adequate appellate review of whether Akins had the requisite convictions for habitual offender treatment.
[1] A postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is only reviewable for grounds that are facially valid and not dependent on matters outside the…
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a postconviction motion must be accompanied by attachments from the record that conclusively refute the defendant's allegations.
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“The record on appeal does not contain a presentence investigation report, which Mr. Akins alleges is attached to his motion and supports his claim.”
Establishes the critical missing document that prevented conclusive review of the summary denial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Akins was treated as a habitual offender at sentencing. He filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) all…
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 Postconviction Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1184] PER CURIAM.
Michael Akins appeals the summary denial of a postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). None of the grounds raised in the motion, except one, is reviewable under that rule. See Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1992). The motion alleges that Mr. Akins did not have the requisite convictions for treatment as a habitual offender and the state never established a factual basis for his treatment as a habitual offender at his sentencing hearing. The record on appeal does not contain a presentence investigation report, which Mr. Akins alleges is attached to his motion and supports his claim. The trial court’s order denying relief recites that documents are attached, but no documents are attached. We have given the clerk of the trial court an opportunity to locate these missing attachments. The clerk filed a supplemental record containing a photocopy of an envelope that apparently seals the PSI, and a portion of a sentencing order, which the clerk describes as all of the documents attached to the trial court’s order. Our own records of Mr. Akins’ direct appeal establish that no sentencing issue was raised in that proceeding. Because the record does not conclusively establish that Mr. Akins is entitled to no relief on this issue, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.
On remand, if the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record that conclusively refute Mr. Akins’ 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.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peraza v. State, 920 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…t our record remains inadequate to permit review. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal, and we permit Ms. Peraza to file another motion to correct illegal sentence raising any issue that she alleged in the missing motion. See Heflin v. State, 655 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND, CASANUEVA, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)