JOHN FOSTER REED, 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.
John Reed appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty despite having evidence he was incarcerated during the alleged crime period. The court reversed because the state's documentary submissions did not conclusively refute Reed's allegations as required by Florida law.
The court reversed and remanded because the state failed to conclusively refute Reed's allegations on the face of the record. The docketing statement did not provide the date of Reed's release from incarceration in 1996, and the DOC Offender Network printout does not satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).
[1] A movant's allegations in a motion for postconviction relief are accepted as true unless conclusively refuted by the record.
[2] A Department of Corrections Offender Network printout alone is insufficient to conclusively refute allegations in a motion for postconviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A movant's allegations are accepted as true unless they are conclusively refuted by the record.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing Rule 3.850 motions on appeal—allegations must be taken as true unless the record conclusively refutes them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReed was charged with committing an offense between March 31, 1996 and May 3, 1996. Reed alleged he was incarcerated during that entire period, provid…
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 Refuted By The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, John Reed, appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse because the record does not conclusively refute his allegations.
Appellant was charged by amended information with committing his offense between March 31, 1996 and May 3, 1996. Appellant contends that he was incarcerated during that period, that he provided counsel with such information, and allegedly, instead of introducing such exculpatory information, counsel coerced him into entering a plea. A movant’s allegations are accepted as true unless they are conclusively refuted by the record. Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911, 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230, 238 (Fla.2003); Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331, 1333 (Fla.1997).
The state, in response, attached a Department of Corrections Offender Network printout and the circuit court clerk’s docketing statement in an .attempt to refute appellant’s allegations. The docketing statement does not provide the date of appellant’s release from.-incarceration in 1996; it provides only-the date of his arrest for violation of probation and does not conclusively refute the allegations. Further, this court has held that a DOC Offender Network printout will not satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Crimi nal Procedure 3.850(d).1 McIntyre v. State, 844 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). As such, the state has failed to conclusively refute appellant’s allegations on the face of the record.
Therefore, this matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further attachment of portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s allegations, or for an evidentiary hearing.
WARNER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . Rule 3.850(d), states in pertinent part: “If the motion, files, -and records in the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief, the motion shall be denied without a hearing. In those instances when the denial is not predicated on the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1997)
- Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2003)
- Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- McINTYRE v. State, 844 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)