JAMES DIEUDONNE, 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 a trial court must either state its rationale or attach refuting record parts when denying a postconviction relief motion without a hearing.
Appellant filed a lengthy postconviction relief motion. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, providing no rationale and attaching no r…
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 Summary Denial Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal emanates from the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. On March 9, 2007, the circuit court clerk’s office accepted for filing appellant’s 49-page motion for posteonvietion relief with several attached affidavits. On the face of the motion is a notation: “Sent to Judge on 3/21/07 by [initials],” which we assume are the initials of a deputy clerk. The trial court denied the motion on March 22, 2007, by an order which states merely that a hearing on the motion is unnecessary. Nothing is attached to the order conclusively refuting the allegations of the motion, and the order does not set forth any rationale for denial.
We summarily reverse. A cursory look at the motion indicates that it is technically sufficient, and the grounds raised are such that review of the proceedings, or part of them, will be necessary to determine their sufficiency. There is no need to secure a response from the office of the Attorney General on behalf of the state, because without access to the trial court file, there is no way to determine the validity of the claims.
When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing, it must “either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.” Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993) (citing Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990)). The trial court’s order in this case does neither. The order is reversed and remanded for attachment of records conclusively refuting the allegations of the motion or for an evidentiary hearing. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (explaining that, where summary denial is not based on legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, the portions of the record that conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief must be attached to the order).
STONE, WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Ramad Terry v. State, 970 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ly reverse and remand the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for the attachment of records that conclusively refute the allegations of the motion or for an evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d); Dieudonne v. State, 958 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Hayes v. State, 958 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). WARNER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Simon v. State, 997 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…otion, did not require a state response, and did not attach any records addressing appellant’s claims.1 Summary denial of the motion in this fashion was improper, and we must [*493] reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Dieudonne v. State, 958 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Appellant also filed, on June 27, 2007, an “Amended Motion for Post Conviction Relief,” which was untimely and should have been dismissed. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). This court’s remand does not require the trial court to consid…
-
Shea v. State, 97 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…(Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Sheffield v. State, 903 So. 2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). See also Terry v. State, 970 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (summarily reversing the denial of a Rule 3.850 motion under the same circumstances); Dieudonne v. State, 958 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (same); Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1993) (requiring a court summarily denying a Rule 3.850 motion to “state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented”…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1993)
- Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1990)