JIM LEE WADE, 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.
Jim Lee Wade appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his child pornography conviction on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court's orders were incomplete, potentially absent critical record pages, and failed to address Wade's newly-raised recusal motion against one of the judges.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court's disposition orders were incomplete (missing pages and insufficient record attachments), the trial court failed to consider Wade's amendment to his motion, and the trial court did not rule on Wade's newly-raised motion to recuse Judge Alcott based on Wade's prior attempt to retain him as counsel.
[1] A postconviction motion should be reconsidered and resolved when the trial court was unaware of a pending motion to amend the pleading at the time of its final order.
[2] Appellate review of a postconviction motion is hampered when the trial court's orders are incomplete or missing pages from the record.
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“Unfortunately, the trial court attached only one page from the record to either order. This court's review is further hampered by the fact that the order of June 5 that was transmitted to this court is missing page two.”
Establishes the procedural defects in the trial court's orders that undermined appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWade was convicted of fifty-seven child pornography offenses in 1997. On direct appeal, the court affirmed fifty-five convictions and remanded for res…
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 Motion To Recuse Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Jim Lee Wade appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of this motion and for resolution of an amended motion that is pending in the trial court.
Mr. Wade was convicted of fifty-seven offenses relating to child pornography in 1997. On direct appeal, this court affirmed fifty-five of those offenses and remanded for resentencing. Wade v. State, 751 So .2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The supreme court initially accepted jurisdiction on his case and then dismissed review in 2001. Wade v. State, 760 So. 2d 949 (Fla.2000); Wade v. State, 779 So. 2d 266 (Fla.2001). Mr. Wade filed this timely postconviction motion in January 2003, alleging numerous grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court entered an order disposing of some of the grounds on June 5, 2003, and a final order disposing of the remaining grounds on October 21, 2003. At the time the trial court entered the final order, it did not realize that Mr. Wade had filed a motion to amend his pleading a few days earlier. During the pendency of this appeal, the trial court has entered an order staying its ruling on that motion until the conclusion of this appeal.
The two orders resolving this motion state that the trial court has reviewed the case file prior to denying the rule 3.850 motion. Unfortunately, the trial court attached only one page from the record to either order. This court’s review is further hampered by the fact that the order of June 5 that was transmitted to this court is missing page two. Finally, the June order was signed by Judge McCarthy and the final order was signed by Judge Alcott. On appeal, Mr. Wade argues for the first time that he attempted to retain Judge Alcott as his lawyer when these charges were first filed and that he would have attempted to recuse Judge Alcott if he had realized the case was assigned to him.
All things considered, it seems prudent to reverse and remand to permit the trial court to reconsider the original motion as well as the amendment to the motion and to permit the trial court to rule upon Mr. Wade’s motion to recuse Judge Alcott.
Reversed and remanded.
COVINGTON and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wade v. State, 751 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Wade v. State, 779 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2001)
- Fla. HRS Dist. II v. Pickard, 779 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2001)