DWIGHT MATHEWS, 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.
Dwight Mathews appealed the trial court's summary dismissal of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion for newly discovered evidence. The court reversed because the trial court had already determined the motion warranted an evidentiary hearing but then summarily dismissed it before that hearing could occur.
The trial court erred in summarily dismissing the rule 3.850 motion after determining it warranted an evidentiary hearing. The claim remained facially sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing, and the motion must be remanded for the hearing to be held.
[1] A trial court errs by summarily dismissing a motion for postconviction relief after previously determining that the motion warrants an evidentiary hearing.
[2] A facially sufficient claim in a motion for postconviction relief requires an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It was error for the trial court summarily to dismiss a motion under rule 3.850 after determining that it warranted an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the core holding that summary dismissal is improper once an evidentiary hearing has been granted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMathews filed a rule 3.850 motion on April 3, 2001, alleging entitlement to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. After mandamus interventio…
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 Summary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
Dwight Mathews appeals the summary dismissal of his motion for posteonviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the trial court issued this summary dismissal in spite of determining that Mathews was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, we reverse.
On April 3, 2001, Mathews filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. On March 4, 2002, Mathews filed a writ of mandamus with this court because the trial court had not ruled on his postconviction motion. On March 13, 2002, this court issued an order to the trial court inquiring about the status of this motion. On March 28, 2002, the trial court issued an order to the State to show cause why Mathews was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his rule 3.850 motion. The State filed its response with the trial court on April 10, 2002. On May 28, 2002, the trial court issued an order granting an evidentiary hearing.
On July 31, 2002, Mathews filed a motion to appoint a process server because his witness was released from prison and could no longer be located. On August 19, 2002, this motion was granted. On August 30, 2002, the trial court attempted to hold the evidentiary hearing. Mathews moved for a continuance because his witness had not yet been located. This motion was granted. On October 4, 2002, the trial court again attempted to hold the evidentiary hearing and again Mathews moved for a continuance because his witness had not yet been located. This motion was granted. On December 12, 2002, this court granted Mathews’ writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing no later than December 20, 2002. On December 17, 2002, the trial court again attempted to hold the evidentiary hearing and again Mathews moved for a continuance because his witness had not yet been located. This motion was granted on December 17, 2002. In the order granting the motion, the trial court stated, “Defendant should be aware that there will be no more continuances granted in this case.”
On January 31, 2003, the trial court again attempted to hold the evidentiary hearing and Mathews again moved for a continuance. The trial court denied the continuance. Mathews indicated that he could not go forward with the evidentiary hearing without his witness. The trial court then issued an order dismissing Mathews’ rule 3.850 motion, stating: “In light of the fact that Defendant is unable to locate this key witness and indicates that he cannot go forward with his motion without this witness, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted.”
It was error for the trial court summarily to dismiss a motion under rule 3.850 after determining that it warranted an evidentiary hearing. The claim in Mathews’ rule 3.850 motion remains facially sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing. If Mathews is unable to present testimony at the hearing to establish his claim, the trial court should issue a nonsummary denial of his rule 3.850 motion.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chacon v. State, 938 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…hould not have summarily denied the facially sufficient motion without conducting an eviden-tiary hearing when nothing supported the denial. The “rule 3.850 motion remains facially sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.” See Mathews v. State, 870 So. 2d 36, 37-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). I would reverse the order denying relief and direct that an evidentiary hearing be conducted. Only after Chacon is afforded a full evidentiary hearing should we determine that due process has been satisfied.…