JOSEPH D. PULLUM, 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.
Joseph Pullum appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850(a) postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirmed the denial of four claims that were facially insufficient but reversed and remanded four other claims because the trial court failed to cite specific portions of the record refuting them, instead merely attaching all eight volumes of the trial transcript.
The trial court properly denied claims five(a) through eight as facially insufficient. However, the trial court erred in summarily dismissing claims two through five because although facially sufficient, the court failed to attach specific portions of the trial record refuting the claims as required by rule 3.850(d), and instead merely submitted the entire transcript.
[1] A claim for postconviction relief is facially insufficient if it fails to allege facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief.
[2] A trial court must attach specific portions of the trial record that conclusively refute a defendant's allegations when summarily denying a facially sufficient claim for…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief requires the trial court to attach the specific portions of the trial record conclusively refuting the defendant's allegations.”
Establishes the legal standard for denying facially sufficient rule 3.850(a) claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePullum filed a rule 3.850(a) motion alleging nine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed claims two through …
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 Insufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Joseph Pullum appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Pullum’s rule 3.850(a) motion alleges nine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Claims five(a) though eight of Pullum’s motion are facially insufficient. We affirm the denial of these claims without comment.
Claims two through five of Pul-lum’s motion are facially sufficient. Adopting the State’s response to the trial court’s show cause order, the trial court summarily dismissed these claims as being without merit in light of the overwhelming evidence presented by the State at trial. As to these claims, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
A facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief requires the trial court to attach the specific portions of the trial record conclusively refuting the defendant’s allegations. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(a). Although the trial court’s order lists some of the State’s evidence allegedly presented at trial, the trial court does not cite to any specific portion. Rather than attaching those specific portions of the record refuting Pullum’s claim, the trial court merely submitted all eight volumes of the trial transcript in connection with its order to refute Pullum’s claims. Submitting the entire transcript with the order does not meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d). According to Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990), rule 3.850(d) requires “[s]ome greater degree of specificity....” See also Loomis v. State, 691 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (reversing an order that only incorporated State’s rationale and attached the entire transcript to dismiss a rule 3.850 motion).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order as to claims two through five of Pullum’s motion. On remand, if the trial court again denies these claims, it must attach those specific portions of the record refuting the claims along with the trial court’s supporting rationale. Loomis, 691 So. 2d at 35. If, however, the trial court finds that the record does not conclusively refute these claims, then it must conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the unrefuted claim or claims. Id.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
STRINGER and WALLAGE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 223 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…e defendant is entitled to no relief.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4) (emphasis added). The court's approach frustrates appellate review and can alone be grounds for reversal to attach specific records to the summary denial order. See Pullum v. State, 893 So. 2d 627, 628-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Nonetheless, we considered the court's order and attachments. .At other times, Walker’s complexion was described as blotchy.…
-
Cleveland Glover v. State, 996 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…, 346 (Fla.2004). At the outset, Glover complains that the trial court improperly attached the entire trial record to its order summarily denying his motion, rather than specific portions of the record to refute his claims. He cites Pullum v. State, 893 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), which held that a trial court fails to satisfy the requirements of rule 3.850(d) when it submits the entire transcript of trial proceedings with an order summarily denying post-conviction relief. This approach [*888] places…
-
Williams v. State, 224 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…e defendant is entitled to no relief.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4) (emphasis added). The court’s approach frustrates appellate review and can alone be grounds for reversal to attach specific records to the summary denial order. See Pullum v. State, 893 So. 2d 627, 628-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1990)
- Loomis v. State, 691 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)