MARK S. BROWN, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal because the record on appeal was inadequate, lacking the appellant's motion.
Appellant challenged the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which the trial court treated as a rule 3.850 motion. The trial cour…
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 Appellate Record Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mark S. Brown challenges the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which the trial court treated as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court dismissed Brown’s motion on several grounds; however, this court is unable to review the matter because Brown’s motion is not included in the record on appeal, and the clerk of the circuit court can find no record of Brown’s motion being filed.1
Because we cannot review the matter without an adequate record, we affirm the trial court’s order. However, because the lack of an adequate record is due to no fault of Brown, our affirmance is without prejudice to Brown’s right to file a renewed motion pursuant to rule 3.850 raising the same grounds within thirty days from the date mandate issues. Such motion shall not be considered successive.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur. . The trial court’s order very specifically states that it is considering Brown's petition entitled "Error Corum Nobis” [sic] filed on February 5, 2001. The trial court's order states that a copy of Brown's motion is attached and incorporated into the order, but no such attachment is included in the record. Because of the specificity of the trial court's order, this court does not question whether Brown actually filed a motion with the trial court on this date.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…rt affirmed with an opinion which indicated that Brown could seek a renewed rule 3.850 motion raising the same grounds because the petition had been misplaced by the clerk of the circuit court and therefore could not be reviewed. See Brown v. State, 790 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).…
-
Pugh v. State, 793 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…in the hope that the State could assist the clerk in locating an accurate copy of the missing pleading. Unfortunately, the motion could not be located, and this court cannot properly review the matter without an adequate record. See Brown v. State, 790 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. However, this affirmance is without prejudice to Pugh’s right to file another motion concerning the same issues with the trial court. Affirmed. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT…
-
Errol D. Brooks v. State, 789 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ks, our affirmance is without prejudice to Brooks’ right to file a renewed motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) raising the same grounds within thirty days from the date of the mandate. Such motion shall not be considered successive. See Brown v. State, 790 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Affirmed. [*1168] THREADGILL, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, Concur. . The trial court's order specifically states that it is considering Brooks’ motion to correct an illegal sentence pursu…
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