MARVIN MOORE, 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 trial court cannot summarily deny a motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding habitual offender sentencing or failure to perfect an appeal without attaching record portions refuting the claim.
Appellant Marvin Moore appealed the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assi…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Marvin Moore, appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising three issues. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
A trial court may not summarily deny a 3.850 motion alleging that trial counsel failed to object to a habitual-offender sentence which the sentencing court imposed without following proper procedures, unless the court attaches portions of the record that refute such claim. Hall v. State, 603 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Wells v. State, 598 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
It is also reversible error to summarily deny a 3.850 motion alleging that trial counsel failed to honor the defendant’s timely request to take an appeal, without attaching portions of the record that refute such claim. Hudson v. State, 596 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Short v. State, 596 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Moore’s third issue should have been raised on direct appeal, therefore, we affirm the court’s summary denial of that issue.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court with directions to either attach portions of the record to refute Moore’s claims of ineffective assistance, or conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding these matters.
AFFIRM IN PART, REVERSE IN PART and REMAND.
ERVIN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trowell v. State, 706 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…and waived his right to appeal the matters relating to the judgment. We cannot agree. The court’s decision in Thomas is inconsistent with a substantial body of case law from this court and other district courts of appeal. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 661 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Kiser v. State, 649 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Owens v. State, 643 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Clayton v. State, 635 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hudson v. State, 596 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Short v. State, 5…1 / 2
-
Owens v. State, 721 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…g belated appeals of the two trial court orders. The petition was granted because neither order advised appellant of his right to appeal. The allegation that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal as requested appears sufficient. Moore v. State, 661 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (It is reversible error to summarily deny a 3.850 motion alleging that trial counsel failed to honor the defendant’s timely request to take an appeal, without attaching portions of the record that refute such claim.); Trowell v.…
Authorities Cited
- Short v. State, 596 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Wells v. State, 598 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Hudson v. State, 596 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Hall v. State, 603 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)