RONALD LANE, 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 denial of most postconviction relief claims but reversed and remanded one claim because the trial court failed to attach required record portions. This highlights the importance of proper record attachments in postconviction proceedings.
Yes, the trial court erred by failing to attach the pertinent portions of the record related to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning the DNA analyst. Therefore, the denial of this specific claim is reversed.
[1] A trial court order denying postconviction relief must include supporting attachments from the record as required by rule 3.850(d).
[2] Attaching the entire trial record does not comply with the rule requiring specific supporting attachments for a postconviction relief order.
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“However, the court failed to include supporting attachments, as is required under rule 3.850(d).”
Establishes the procedural error by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoger Lane sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a DNA analyst. The trial court denied most cla…
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.
We affirm the trial court’s order rejecting claims one, three, four and five of Roger Lane’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In claim two, Lane complains that his trial counsel should have called a DNA analyst to testify as a defense witness because the analyst’s testimony would have “convinced” the jury that someone other than Lane deposited the blood that was left on the victim’s shirt. In denying relief on this issue, the trial court made several references to the record in support of its findings and conclusions. However, the court failed to include supporting attachments, as is required under rule 3.850(d).
We recognize that in its order the trial court wrote: “If the defendant appeals from the denial of this order, the clerk of the court shall include volumes I, II and III of the October 30, 2000 and October 31, 2000 trial transcript and the November 14, 2000 motions and sentencing hearing.” However, attaching the entire record fails to comply with the rule and the supreme court’s pronouncement in Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla.1990), which recognized that a construction of rule 3.850 that would allow the attachment of the entire record would render the language of the rule meaningless. Our ability to review the trial court’s order is further hampered by the fact that volume III of the record goes through page 537, but, according to the State’s response filed with the trial court, relevant discussions between Lane and his counsel regarding the testimony of the DNA analyst appear on page 550 of the record and beyond, which for reasons not clear to us, were not transmitted.
Accordingly, because the trial court relied on specific portions of the record but failed to attach such portions, we remand this matter to the trial court to either attach the pertinent portions of the record relating to claim two or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PETERSON, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valentine v. State, 873 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…e record, or in this case,- making a specific reference to the attached whole. See Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910 (Fla.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 990, 123 S.Ct. 470, 154 L.Ed.2d 359 (2002); Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla.1990); Lane v. State, 868 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). If unable to do either of the above, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claim. REVERSED and REMANDED. THOMPSON and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.…
-
Ingram v. State, 990 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…for post-conviction relief. We affirm, without discussion, the summary denial of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. We reverse as to claims 2 and 5 because the transcript excerpts cited by the trial judge were not attached to the order. Lane v. State, 868 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). On remand, the trial court shall either attach the pertinent portions of the record relating to these claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing. We also reverse as to claims 3 and 7 because Ingram was entitled to have the opportu…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1990)