LEONARDO GOMEZ, 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 summary denial of the original motion is affirmed, but the case is reversed and remanded for consideration of the supplemental motion.
[1] A postconviction court must rule on a defendant's supplemental motion for postconviction relief.
[2] When a postconviction court fails to rule on a supplemental motion, the appellate court should reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the motion.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a motion for postconviction relief and a supplemental motion. The trial court summarily denied the original motion but apparently fail…
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 Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
[*912] WHATLEY, Judge.
Leonardo Gomez appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief and supplemental motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On October 13, 2005, Gomez filed a timely rule 3.850 motion raising five claims for relief. On November 16, 2005, the post-conviction court ordered the State to respond to Gomez’s rule 3.850 motion. The State filed its response on January 9, 2006, and Gomez filed a reply to the State’s response on January 30, 2006. On February 6, 2006, Gomez filed a timely supplement to his rule 3.850 motion adding two new. claims for relief. On June 22, 2006, the postconviction court summarily, denied Gomez’s rule. 3.850 motion but apparently failed to rule on Gomez’s supplemental motion.
In order to determine with certainty whether an order was issued on Gomez’s supplemental motion, we ordered a response from the clerk’s office with specific instructions to indicate to this court whether a separate order had been entered on Gomez’s supplemental motion. However, the clerk’s office failed to comply with our order in this regard. Subsequently, we issued a second order for a supplemental response from the clerk’s office which the clerk’s office also failed to completely answer. Based on the limited record before this court and the responses we have received to our inquiries, we can only assume that no order has been entered. Accordingly, we affirm the summary denial of Gomez’s rule 3.850 motion. However, we reverse the order with respect to Gomez’s supplemental motion, and we remand for the postconviction court to consider such. On remand, the postconviction court must determine whether Gomez’s claims are facially sufficient and, if so, must either attach portions of the record to its order demonstrating that Gomez is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part; and remanded.
SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schrack v. State, 958 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…t does not address all of the claims for post-conviction relief will be remanded for entry of an order that does. See Barber v. State, 851 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Currelly v. State, 801 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Gomez v. State, 948 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (affirming summary denial of defendant’s rule 3.850 motion, but reversing with respect to supplemental motion— which the trial court apparently failed to rule on — and remanding for post-conviction court to consider such). We ther…