JASON D. KAFUS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2006-07-26
No. 2D06-1425
CASANUEVA and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
933 So. 2d 1267 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Topics
Summary Denial Postconviction Relief Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
SILBERMAN, Judge.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Jason D. Kafus appeals the postconviction court’s summary denial of his pro se motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his rule 3.850 motion, Kafus raised ten claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court ordered the State to respond to the motion. In its response, the State identified and addressed claims one and two and attached supporting documents from the record. However, the State did not address claims three through ten. The postconviction court then denied the motion for post-conviction relief, specifically referring to claims one and two and adopting the arguments contained in the State’s response.

We affirm the denial of claims one and two without further comment. However, because the postconviction court did not rule on claims three through ten, we reverse and remand for consideration of those claims. On remand, if the postcon-viction court summarily denies relief, it must set forth its reasoning and attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims. See Wilford v. State, 832 So. 2d 924, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Murphy v. State, 24 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
    …he State should have known that the FBI expert’s testimony was false and misleading. The postconviction court did not rule on this claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow the postconviction court to consider the claim. See Kafus v. State, 933 So. 2d 1267, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Calzada v. State, 934 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). V. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we reverse the post-conviction court’s summary denial of Mr. Murphy’s rule 3.850 motion and remand for further proceedings consist…
  • Damas Joseph v. State, 211 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
    …IB, 2, and 3. The trial court denied these grounds and we affirm. The trial court however did not rule on ground 1A. We therefore reverse in part and remand the case to the trial court to rule on ground 1A of the defendant’s motion. Kafus v. State, 933 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (affirming the denial of the addressed claims, but reversing for the trial court to rule on the claims not addressed). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. Taylor and Forst, JJ., concur.…
  • Mercado v. State, 22 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
    …ake a specific finding to support a sentence enhancement. Nevertheless, we remand this case to allow the postconviction court to address the remaining issues raised in grounds three and nine that were not the subject of a ruling. See Kafus v. State, 933 So. 2d 1267, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Calzada v. State, 934 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. KHOUZAM and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw