XAVIER EVANS, 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 held that the post-conviction motion was improperly denied without proper attachments or consideration of the state's response, and the disqualification motion was properly denied.
Appellant appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion and motion to disqualify the judge. The trial court denied the post-conviction motion with…
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 Peremptory Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Xavier Evans appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion without evidentiary hearing or attachment of record excerpts refuting his allegations. He also appeals an order that denied his motion to disqualify the assigned judge and the statewide prosecutor. We affirm the denial of the motion to disqualify, but reverse the order denying the posteonvietion motion and remand for evidentiary hearing or for attachment of excerpts from the trial record that conclusively refute the allegations in the motion.
The state’s response to the motion and the attachments thereto were part of the record on appeal, but could not be considered as a basis for denial because they were neither attached to nor referenced in the order denying relief. We note that the transcript of the jury voir dire would have conclusively refuted the appellant’s allegation that he was not present during the exercise of peremptory strikes, had it been made part of the court’s order. The failure to physically attach the transcript would not have required reversal on this point if the court had stated in its order that it had reviewed the state’s response. See Grimes v. State, 642 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, the order does not mention the response.
The appellant’s second ground for relief was that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction pursuant to Florida Statutes section 90.803(18)(e). The state’s legal arguments below did not adequately refute this claim and the brief excerpt of trial testimony attached to the state’s response would not have been sufficient to disprove appellant’s claim that he was prejudiced by counsel’s omission, even if it had been incorporated in the order. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodgers v. Diederichsen, 820 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…that the ar-rearage of child support amounted to $9,374. In addition, the court ordered the father to pay the mother’s attorney’s fees. The trial court abused its discretion by miscalculating the retroactive child support. See Kasper v. Cornelius, 731 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that the trial court abuses its discretion in incorrectly calculating child support and any corresponding arrearage). The court’s two temporary orders cover the time period from November 2000 to July 2001. Thus, the tria…
-
Kai Uwe Thier v. State, 84 So. 3d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ncorporating a response from the state into the trial court’s ruling, if the state has provided those portions of the record refuting the prisoner’s claims with particularity and has attached the pertinent portions of the record. See Evans v. State, 731 So. 2d 766, 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed. WARNER, POLEN and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Grimes v. State, 642 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Mills v. State, 642 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)