ROBERT EY, 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 trial court improperly denied the motion for rehearing without adequate consideration.
Robert Ey appealed the dismissal of his postconviction relief motion, which was dismissed with prejudice due to his alleged failure to appear at a hea…
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Ey appeals an order dismissing with-prejudice his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court dismissed this motion with prejudice, even though the State had conceded that an evidentiary hearing was required on portions of -the motion. The trial court dismissed the motion because Mr. Ey allegedly refused to leave the county jail to attend the hearing. In imposing this sanction, the trial court relied on unsworn information conveyed to it by the bailiff, who in turn apparently received the information from someone at the jail.
Mr. Ey filed a timely motion for rehearing, explaining that the reasons and circumstances surrounding his failure to appear for the hearing were justifiable and that the trial court did not-obtain accurate information when it dismissed his case with prejudice. The trial court denied this motion without a hearing. The State concedes that the trial court did not adequately address the motion for rehearing.
We note that the motion for postconviction relief, which was filed in-January 2006, may be of little practical assistance to Mr. Ey because it appears to address convictions and sentences imposed in October 2003 that run concurrently with a substantially longer sentence imposed in 2001. Nevertheless, we conclude that the trial court improperly denied his motion for rehearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either conduct a hearing on the motion for rehearing or to grant that motion and conduct a hearing on the issues that had been previously scheduled for the hearing when Mr. Ey did not appear. Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zabriskie v. State, 6 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ure to appear in a timely fashion. The trial court, despite apparently accepting Zabriskie’s explanation as true, found it less than compelling and denied the motion for rehearing. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial. Unlike in Ey v. State, 960 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), there was no factual dispute necessitating an evidentiary hearing. Because the merits of the motion, which warranted an evidentiary hearing, were not reached, the denial and this affirmance are without prejudice to Zabriskie ti…