DAVID HARLEY, 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 affirmed the denial of some ineffective assistance of counsel claims but reversed and remanded others because the trial court failed to attach record portions supporting its denial, preventing meaningful appellate review.
A trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion must be accompanied by attached record portions that conclusively refute the claims, or an evidentiary hearing must be held.
[1] A trial court denying a facially sufficient Rule 3.850 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must attach to its order the record portions that conclusively refute th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a postconviction motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising ten claims of ineffective assistance of tria…
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 Refutation of Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the first, eighth, ninth, and tenth claims without further discussion. Because the order on appeal does not conclusively refute Appellant’s allegations in the remaining claims for relief, we reverse.
Appellant’s remaining claims for relief were facially sufficient claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court relied on the State’s response to the motion to find that these claims were refuted by portions of the trial transcript. However, the trial court failed to attach to its order the portions of the record that it relied on to deny Appellant’s motion. Thus, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review. Dunbar v. State, 916 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Thomas v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
We therefore reverse the portion of the order denying claims two through seven and remand for the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claims or for an evidentiary hearing addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
DAVIS, PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Lucious Dunbar v. State, 916 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)