FREDERICK JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. It appears the trial court found some of appellant’s claims to be facially sufficient, because the court issued an order directing the Office of the State Attorney to respond to the allegations of the motion. The court further directed the state to attach all documents and portions of the record necessary to support the response. Although the state’s response to the trial court’s order cites to specific portions of the record which purportedly refute appellant’s claims, the record provided to this court does not include attachments, either to the response to the order to show cause, or to the order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Since we have determined the allegations as to claims A through D are facially sufficient to demonstrate a basis for relief, we reverse the order as to those claims and remand for further proceedings in accordance with the requirements of rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
BOOTH, JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westphal v. City OF ST. Petersburg/City OF ST. Petersburg Risk Mgmt., 122 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…legislative response” to this court’s decision in Department of Children & Families v. Morman, 715 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and an acceptance of the dissenting opinion in that case); Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Save the Manatee Club, Inc., 733 So. 2d 594, 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (recognizing that the 1999 amendments to section 120.52(8) rejected the standard adopted by this court in St. Johns River Water Management District v. Consolidated-Tomoka Land Co., 717 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)); Consoli…
-
Marrero v. State, 741 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…purchase or [*635] possession] .of cocaine). However, the state correctly concedes that the trial court erred in imposing a habitual offender sentence as to the conviction in count two for the offense of possession of cocaine. See Pittman v. State, 733 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we vacate the habitual offender sentence imposed as to this count alone and remand with instructions to re-sentence the defendant within the applicable sentencing guidelines. Affirmed in part; reversed in part…
-
Dougherty v. State, 33 So. 3d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…tions was not a violation of section 893.13, the defendant was subject to habitual felony offender sanctions. That interpretation is inconsistent with controlling precedent. See Daniels v. State, 679 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Pittman v. State, 733 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Ellis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The statute reflects the legislative intent to exempt purchase or possession of controlled substances from habitual felony [*734] offender enhanced sentencing. Although acquiri…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence