RONALD COTTON, 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 trial court erred in summarily denying the appellant's motion for post-conviction relief without sufficient record attachments or an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant filed a lengthy pro se motion for post-conviction relief following his conviction for second-degree murder. The trial court summarily denied…
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 Prosecutorial Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a 247-page pro se motion for post-conviction relief raising approximately 12 different claims for post-conviction relief following his conviction and 30-year sentence for second degree murder. Appellant’s motion was verified and timely from the date that this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in Cotton v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1536, - So. 2d -, 1998 WL 329441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). It raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct and other trial court error. The trial court summarily denied this motion without ordering a state response, without evidentiary hearing, and without attachment of portions of the trial court record.
“When a trial court summarily denies a motion for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record to refute the allegations, review is limited to determining whether, accepting the allegations as true, the motion shows the defendant is not entitled to relief.” Edwards v. State, 652 So. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We cannot conclude that this motion for post conviction relief shows that appellant is not entitled to relief on any of the multiple grounds raised, including the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court. Should the trial court again conclude that the record conclusively establishes that appellant is entitled to no relief, it shall attach to its order those additional portions of the record which lead it to that conclusion. Otherwise, it shall hold an evidentiary hearing.
GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cornelio Diaz v. State, 766 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…The trial court did not order any response from the state before entering its order. In this situation, our review is limited to whether, accepting the allegations in the motion as true, the appellant was entitled to no relief. See Cotton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We cannot reach that conclusion in this case. As we did in Cotton, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in the trial court. If the trial court again denies the motion, it must either hold an evidentiary hearing first…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Edwards v. State, 652 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)