RAMON L. VALENTINE, 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 court held that the trial court erred by failing to address each claim in a post-conviction relief motion individually.
The appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, asserting twelve claims. The trial court denied the motion summarily, attaching the entire re…
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 Facially Invalid Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Valentine appeals from a summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking post-conviction relief. He asserts twelve claims. Rather than considering each claim on the merits and attaching portions of the record, the court noted that Valentine’s motion was tainted by material misrepresentations and inherently incredible allegations, and it attached the entire record. The court ordered Valentine to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for filing a perjurious motion, as well as his 3.850 motion. After considering Valentine’s responses and additional motions, the court denied all pending motions.
In response to this appeal, the state notes that five of Valentine’s twelve claims are based on alleged statements he asserts were fraudulently omitted from the record. It is unclear from the denial order which claims were based on an alleged fraudulent record and which claims are facially insufficient.
The court failed to consider and address the claims, even in a cursory manner. This does not permit meaningful appellate review by this court. On remand, the court should make a finding for each claim that it is either facially invalid and state a brief reason therefore, or that it is conclusively refuted by the record, attaching relevant portions of the 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Svoboda v. State, 932 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…006); Miller v. State, 917 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Wilson v. [*547] State, 916 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Cole v. State, 913 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Valentine v. State, 873 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Based upon the commissioner’s recommendation, we deny Svoboda’s petition for belated appeal. In light of the assertion made by Svoboda in his petition, under penalty of perjury, that he had requested an appeal, we direct that a…
-
Treve Lamar Oats v. State, 987 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ne within 1,000 feet of a place of worship. There were no attachments to the trial court’s order refuting this allegation. On remand, the trial court shall either attach documents which refute the claim or correct the judgment. Valentine v. State, 873 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed. AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED. PALMER, C. J., TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.…
-
Bridges v. State, 81 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…in its summary denial. Florida case law indicates that when a trial court summarily denies one or more grounds of a rule 8.850 motion, the court’s order must state its rationale for summarily denying as to each issue raised. See Valentine v. State, 873 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“The [trial] court failed to consider and address the claims.... This does not permit meaningful appellate review by this court. On remand, the court should make a finding for each claim that it is either facially invalid and st…
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
- Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2002)
- Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1990)
- Audio Odyssey, Ltd. v. Brenton First Nat'l Bank, 537 U.S. 990 (U.S. 2002)
- Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990 (U.S. 2002)
- Lane v. State, 868 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)