EDDIE CHARLES CURRELLY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Clarification cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Eddie Charles Currelly timely appeals the summary denial of his “motion for clarification.” Although not styled as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the motion met the procedural requirements of this rule and presented issues that were appropriately presented in a rule 3.850 motion. The motion alleged three violations of the plea agreement. The trial court’s order only addressed the claim seeking credit for additional jail time. The portions of the record attached to the order fail to conclusively show that Mr. Currelly was not entitled to relief on that particular claim. The trial court did not address the remaining claims.
We conclude that the trial court should have treated this motion as a postconviction relief motion alleging violations of the plea agreement and addressed all three grounds presented by Mr. Currelly. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.850.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Titus Barber v. State, 851 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ree issues. We therefore remand so that the trial court may address Barber’s fourth issue, ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request a jury instruction pertaining to guilty knowledge of the controlled substance. See Currelly v. State, 801 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Hurley v. State, 779 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (trial court orders which do not address all of the claims for post-conviction relief will be remanded for entry of an order which does).…
-
Schrack v. State, 958 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…complete. We disagree with the State. A trial court order that does not address all of the claims for post-conviction relief will be remanded for entry of an order that does. See Barber v. State, 851 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Currelly v. State, 801 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Gomez v. State, 948 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (affirming summary denial of defendant’s rule 3.850 motion, but reversing with respect to supplemental motion— which the trial court apparently failed to rule on — and re…
-
Seraphin v. State, 192 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…lea agreement was violated when he was not given credit for the time spent in federal custody, as the parties contemplated when he entered his plea.. His claim is cognizable,under rule 3.850 .and is facially sufficient. See, e.g., Currelly v. State, 801 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (concluding that a rule 3.850 motion alleging the plea agreement was violated when the movant was not given jail credit was facially sufficient and that the attachments to the order did not conclusively refute the claim). *We rev…
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