ROGER DOUGLAS BUNGER, 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.
Roger Bunger appealed an order denying his postconviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed in part, finding that the trial court failed to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing two of his five ineffective assistance claims, requiring remand for proper consideration of those claims.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of three of the five claims where the trial court provided adequate findings and rationales, but reversed as to the second and third claims (failure to obtain exculpatory documents and failure to request a curative instruction) because the trial court failed to provide findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a rationale for denying those claims.
[1] A trial court's order denying postconviction relief is deficient if it fails to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on each claim presented by the defendant.
[2] A trial court must provide rationales for denying postconviction claims, particularly when the record does not refute the claims.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the trial cornet failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and also failed to provide rationales for denying claims 2 and 3, we reverse as to those claims.”
States the basis for reversal: the trial court's failure to comply with the rule requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law on all postconviction claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBunger was convicted at trial and subsequently filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on five grounds: trial c…
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 Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roger Bunger challenges an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Bunger’s motion alleged that his trial counsel failed to render effective assistance based on his: 1) failure to call witnesses; 2) failure to obtain exculpatory documents from another attorney retained by Bunger before trial; 3) failure to request a curative instruction on improper testimony concerning his right to remain silent; 4) lack of knowledge about video evidence; and 5) failure to note a conflict of interest because the public defender was also representing one of his codefendants.
On appeal he argues that the trial court’s order is deficient because it fails to address each of these claims. Because the trial cornet failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and also failed to provide rationales for denying claims 2 and 3, we reverse as to those claims. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(d) (providing that following an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction claim, the trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the issues presented by the defendant). The court attached volume II of the hearing transcript to its order denying Bun-ger’s motion; however, this transcript does not refute Bunger’s second and third claims. The court made adequate findings and stated a rationale for denying each of the remaining claims in its ruling from the bench.
On remand, the court shall enter an order making findings of fact and conclusions of law as to Bunger’s second and third claims or identify those portions of the record which demonstrate that Bunger is not entitled to relief on those claims.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dillbeck v. State, 882 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2004)…actual findings because ineffective-assistance claims present mixed questions of law and fact which require an appellate court to defer to the factual findings of the trial court while independently reviewing its legal conclusions); Bunger v. State, 779 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (remanding "[b]ecause the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and also failed to provide rationales for denying claims 2 and 3”). . During voir dire, counsel made the following statement (or s…
-
Strianese v. State, 880 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…rder. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (providing that following an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim, the trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the issues presented by the defendant); see also Bunger v. State, 779 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Kornegay v. State, 826 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). We have considered the other arguments raised by Strianese and find them to be without merit. We affirm without discussion the trial court’s summary denial of Strianese’s…