WILLIAM R. OMASTA, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2001-08-10
No. 2D01-1448
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
805 So. 2d 846 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Uncounseled Convictions Doctrine Of Laches Sentence Enhancement Laches

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Uncounseled Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, Judge.

[*847] DAVIS, Judge.

William R. Omasta, Jr., appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Omasta claimed that his 1979 conviction should be vacated because he was denied the right to counsel during his trial resulting in uncounseled convictions which were later used to enhance his current federal sentence. The trial court determined that preparation of transcripts for Omasta’s trial was not possible and denied the claim finding that it was barred by the doctrine of laches. The trial court, however, provided no indication that a hearing was held, nor did it attach any record evidence to support its conclusion. We reverse.

Under these circumstances, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether a claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. See State v. Perry, 786 So. 2d 554 (Fla.2001) (approving district court’s holding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether coram no-bis claim is barred by laches). Accordingly, we remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the laches issue.

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Bain v. State, 9 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
    …ues that are not properly resolved without an evidentiary hearing.’ ” Wilson v. State, 868 So. 2d 654, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (first alternation in original) (quoting Love v. State, 814 So. 2d 475, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)); see also Omasta v. State, 805 So. 2d 846, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that evidentiary hearing was required to [*725] determine whether postconviction motion was barred by the doctrine of laches). In the instant case, the postconviction court erred in denying Bain’s motion on the basis…
  • Williams v. State, 828 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
    …peals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Although laches, the trial court’s stated reason for denial, is improper without an evidentiary hearing, see Omasta v. State, 805 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we have examined the record and have determined that all of Mr. Williams’ claims are untimely. See Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999); Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla.2002). Affirmed. ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ.,…
  • Omasta v. State, 830 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
    …ss of its jurisdiction, we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the writ, and quash the order. We remand with instructions that the trial court hold the evidentiary hearing required by this court’s opinion in Omasta v. State, 805 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (case number 2D01-1448) (mandate issued January 4, 2002). Reversed and remanded. GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw