MAURICIO SOLORZANO, 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.
Solorzano appealed a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion. The Third District affirmed the denial of six claims but reversed and remanded the seventh claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a suppression motion, because the trial court's order lacked adequate record support.
The court affirmed the summary denial of the first six claims as either refuted by the record or insufficiently pled. However, the court reversed the summary denial of the seventh claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and remanded for either an evidentiary hearing or a new order with record evidence demonstrating the defendant is not entitled to relief.
[1] An appellate court must reverse a summary denial of postconviction relief unless the record conclusively shows the appellant is entitled to no relief.
[2] A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to file a motion to suppress is not conclusively refuted by the record when the relevant exhibit is not pro…
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 intelligence“On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for summary denials of Rule 3.850 motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSolorzano filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising seven claims for relief. The trial court summarily deni…
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Because the first six claims raised by the defendant are either refuted by the record or insufficiently pled, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s first six claims for postconviction relief. However, because the record does not conclusively refute the defendant’s seventh claim, we reverse the order as to that claim only and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the attachment of record excerpts conclusively showing that the defendant is not entitled to any relief. See Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460,460-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
In the defendant’s seventh claim, he alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to file and to litigate a motion to suppress his out-of-court statements, both oral and written.' Although the trial court’s order states that this claim is refuted by the trial transcript, refers to specific pages of the transcript, and states that they are contained in “Exhibit D,” this exhibit has not been provided to this court for review and the clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit claims not to have the exhibit in its possession.
The trial court should either conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the defendant’s claim or provide a new order denying this claim with record evidence demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mauricio Solorzano v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…not an adjudication withheld. Thus, it can be counted as a requisite prior offense for purposes of habitualization.1 Second, the defendant raised the same issue on appeal from a prior denied motion, and this Court affirmed. See Solorzano v. State, 965 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The defendant’s current rule 3.800 motion was properly denied as successive. Affirmed. 1 In the October 11, 2018 order denying 3.800 relief, the trial court observed that there was an apparent discrepancy in the deputy clerk’s…
Authorities Cited
- Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)