JEFFREY MELTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Court reversed summary denial of Rule 3.850 motion to extent defendant claimed written sentence did not conform to oral pronouncement, requiring evidentiary hearing where record did not conclusively refute the claim.
When a trial court summarily denies a postconviction motion under Rule 3.850, reversal and remand for evidentiary hearing is required unless the record conclusively shows the appellant is entitled to no relief.
[1] When a trial court summarily denies a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, reversal and remand for evidentiary hearing is required unless…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“On appeal from the denial of relief, unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.”
Standard of review for summary denial of postconviction relief motions under Rule 3.850
Defendant Melton appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, claiming his written sentence did not conform to the court's ora…
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 Standard Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEPHERD, J.
Defendant appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
We reverse the order to the extent that it denies defendant’s claim that his written sentence does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. See, e.g., D’Haiti v. State, 818 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 835 So. 2d 266 (Fla.2002); Reddick v. State, 802 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “When a trial court summarily denies a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), 3.850, or 3.853, this court’s standard of review is as follows. ‘On appeal from the denial of relief, unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.’ Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).” Gonzalez v. State, 2005 WL 1706399 (Fla. 3d DCA June 29, 2005); Miller v. State, 905 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
As the trial judge did not attach a copy of the sentencing transcript and because the record does not conclusively refute defendant’s claim, we reverse the order as to this claim and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. See Miller. As to defendant’s remaining claims, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)…64 So. 2d at 1258. These courts have also held that a trial court cannot summarily deny a movant’s motion to correct a sentence under rule 3.800(a) without attaching the portion of the record that refutes the movant’s assertion. See Melton v. State, 908 So. 2d 1136, 1136-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Berthiaume, 864 So. 2d at 1258; Fitzpatrick, 863 So. 2d at 463; Watts, 790 So. 2d at 1176. Only the Fourth District holds that such a claim in not cognizable under a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Williams, 913 So. 2d at 1239…
-
Melton v. State, 963 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…wever, because the trial court also denied the motion now before us as being successive. That ruling was correct. We may take judicial notice of our own files. After taking judicial notice of this court’s files in No. 3D06-79 and in Melton v. State, 908 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), it is clear that appellant filed an earlier Rule 3.850 motion which was decided on the merits. The appellant has not shown in the current motion any ground for relief from the bar of successiveness. See Owen v. Crosby, 854 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Holcomb v. State, 802 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Miller v. State, 905 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- D'Haiti v. State, 818 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)