FREDERICK L. WATERFIELD, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Untimely Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
[*736] PER CURIAM.
Frederick Waterfield appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion Waterfield alleges newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the motion, finding that it was untimely in that the allegedly newly discovered evidence had been known to Waterfield since 1984 and successive in that Waterfield had raised essentially the same claim in a prior rule 8.850 motion. To support these conclusions the trial court attached a copy of its order denying Waterfield’s first motion but did not include the motion itself or the record attachments referenced by the first order. Without the attachment of the pri-or motion or the record attachments, we cannot adequately review the basis for the trial court’s order denying the motion. See Bell v. State, 585 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Therefore, we reverse and remand. On remand the trial court may again deny Waterfield’s motion as untimely or successive, provided that record attachments conclusively demonstrate that the motion is untimely or successive.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…mers v. State, 670 So. 2d 1105, 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Becton v. State, 668 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). [*192] As a general rule, the failure to attach portions of the record requires us to reverse on all claims. See Waterfield v. State, 736 So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). However, in this case, all of Shaw’s claims, except one, are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). We, therefore, reverse and remand only as to the excessive sentence and erroneous enhancement claim. On remand, the trial court…
-
Waterfield v. State, 1 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…84 So. 2d 521 (Fla.2008); Waterfield v. State, 900 So. 2d 556 (Fla.2005); Waterfield v. State, 718 So. 2d 1235 (Fla.1998); Waterfield v. Reese, 652 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1995); Water-field v. State, 740 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Waterfield v. State, 736 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Waterfield v. State, 705 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Waterfield v. State, 688 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Waterfield v. Reese, 668 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Waterfield v. State, 640 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Wat…1 / 2
-
Esteves v. State, 966 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…h Esteves that the trial court erred in denying his motion as successive to his prior rule 3.800(a) motion, without attaching any portions of the record to support its conclusion that the same argument was raised in that motion. Waterfield v. State, 736 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Moreover, our own records for his prior appeal, Esteves v. State, 947 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Table), indicate that this argument actually was not raised in his prior rule 3.800(a) motion. However, the error was harmles…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 585 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)