RAMAD TERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.850 Motion For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion seeking postconviction relief. The trial judge denied the motion without ordering a response from the state or attaching records to refute the claims. The court also did not state any reason for the denial in its order. “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.’” Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993)). As the trial court’s order in this case does neither, we summarily 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shea v. State, 97 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…, and without any attachments. This was improper. Fleming v. State, 980 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Matyjasik v. State, 969 So. 2d 1142 (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 denyi…
-
Rosa v. State, 147 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…facially insufficient.” The trial court provided no explanation for its denial in this case. The better practice is for the trial court to explain the basis for denial in its order. See Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1993); Terry v. State, 970 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Dieudonne v. State, 958 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Without an explanation, the movant may not have a meaningful opportunity to cure the deficiency. “Ordinarily, a facially insufficient rule 3.853 motion should be dismissed…
-
Holley v. State, 67 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…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)). See also Walkes v. State, 9 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Terry v. State, 970 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The trial court’s order in this case did neither. We therefore summarily reverse and remand for the attachment of portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Dieudonne v. State, 958 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Hayes v. State, 958 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Sierra v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)