MICHAEL MONCER, 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 appellate court reversed the denial of postconviction relief because essential record portions were illegible, preventing review.
Appellant appealed the summary denial of his postconviction relief motion. Significant portions of the motion in the record were illegible, and the co…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Moncer appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Significant portions of the copy of appellant’s motion contained in the record on appeal are illegible. Although the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion was rendered only on February 18,1997, the clerk of circuit court has already destroyed the court file and committed it to microfilm; the clerk advises that no clearer copy of appellant’s motion is available.1
Under the circumstances, we are unable to review the propriety of the order denying the motion. Therefore, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for postconvietion relief, and remand with instructions that appellant be permitted to refile his motion within thirty days following the issuance of our mandate. Cf. Van Scoyoc v.York, 173 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 179 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1965) (appellate court has power to grant new trial where records essential to appellate review destroyed by official of lower court through no fault of appellant).
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur. . The trial court initially denied appellant's motion as untimely, and appellant appealed. This court reversed and remanded with directions to the circuit court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the motion was timely mailed. See Moncer v. State, 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Apparently, it was during the pendency of that appeal that the court file was destroyed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- van Scoyoc v. Verdye Umstad York and Charlotte Paget, 173 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Simon v. Freitag, 179 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1965)
- Trepanier v. State, 179 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1965)
- Moncer v. State, 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)