JEFFREY KEVIN MULLINS, 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.
Mullins appealed the trial court's summary striking of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850, which sought to withdraw three guilty pleas entered between 1986 and 1988. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by striking the motion based on alleged false allegations without holding an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions establishing the falsity, and directing the court to rule on the merits.
A trial court may not summarily strike a rule 3.850 motion by concluding allegations are false without holding an evidentiary hearing and attaching record portions establishing that conclusion. When no evidentiary hearing is held, the trial court must accept the movant's factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record. The making of allegedly perjurious statements does not constitute a procedural defect justifying summary dismissal without a hearing.
[1] A trial court must accept a movant's factual allegations in a rule 3.850 motion as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record, unless an evidentiary hearing is…
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion without attaching portions of the record to refute the movant's allegations is improper.
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“when the trial court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, it must accept the movant's factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record”
Establishes the standard for reviewing 3.850 motions that are not granted an evidentiary hearing—factual allegations must be accepted as true unless contradicted by existing record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMullins filed a rule 3.850 motion seeking to withdraw three pleas entered in five different cases in 1986, 1987, and 1988, alleging numerous reasons f…
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 Record Attachments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Kevin Mullins appeals an order summarily striking his motion for posteonvietion relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant sought to withdraw three pleas entered in five different cases in 1986, 1987, and 1988, alleging under oath a veritable laundry list of reasons for the withdrawal of all the pleas. The state had filed a response below, giving cogent reasons why summary denial of the motion was appropriate.
The trial court, without an evidentiary hearing or any record attachments whatsoever,1 declined to consider the state’s reasons for denial but instead struck the motion because it concluded that the motion was based upon false allegations of fact.
The trial court noted in its order that not only had Appellant alleged the same exact unlikely factual scenarios surrounded all three of his plea colloquies, but six other defendants incarcerated in the same federal prison had filed .motions challenging a total of thirty other pleas, also based on the exact same factual allegations.
In response to this court’s order to show cause, the state reargues the merits, which were never ruled on below, and cites Davis v. State, 257 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), in which the court noted that when the record establishes that the allegations that support a motion for postconviction relief are untrue, then it is proper to deny the motion without a hearing. Here, however, the trial court did not attach to its order any portions of the record to establish that Mullins’ allegations were untrue. The state takes the position that neither an evidentiary hearing nor record attachments were necessary because the motion was “procedurally defective.” We disagree that the making of perjurious statements in a rule 3.850 motion constitutes a “procedural defect.” Instead, when the trial court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, it must accept the movant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record. See Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331, 1333 (Fla.1997).
Compare Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (noting that, when a trial court finds after a full hearing that the defendant’s sworn statement was untrue, then the trial court should consider instituting contempt proceedings against the movant, or prosecuting the movant for perjury).
Accordingly, we reverse the order striking the motion and direct the trial court on remand to rule on the motion.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . If a rule 3.850 motion is not denied for legal insufficiency on its face, the trial court must attach the portions of the files and records showing conclusively that the movant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ortiz v. State, 968 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…icient or conclusively refuted by the record. Id. If the defendant’s claims are legally sufficient, the trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims in order to properly issue a summary denial. Mullins v. State, 850 So. 2d 676, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). An appellate court reviewing the summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief must accept the defendant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record. See Freeman, 761 So.…
-
Abel Travieso v. State, 852 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ions were fraudulent and struck them. We' find no authority under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizing a court to strike a motion for post conviction relief as a sham pleading. We reverse for the reasons discussed in Mullins v. State, 850 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). On remand, the trial court shall rule on the motions. FARMER, C.J., WARNER, and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Ruan v. State, 965 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…” as explained in Hannon. 941 So. 2d at 1118 (quoting Maxwell ). A trial court, when it has not conducted an evidentiary hearing, must accept a movant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record. Mullins v. State, 850 So. 2d 676, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Here, appellant’s unrefuted factual allegations are that [*354] the victim described the perpetrator as a “tall black man” and that the victim’s description was an exculpatory1 piece of evidence not communicated to him by h…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1997)
- Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Broward Davis v. State, 257 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)