VLADIMIR CHERENFANT, 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 postconviction court erred by not considering the amended motion, but affirmed the denial of the original motion's claims.
Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief and later an amended motion. The postconviction court denied claims in the original motion and orde…
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 Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Vladimir Cherenfant appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He also challenges the post-conviction court’s failure to consider the merits of his amended motion. We affirm the denial of relief as to the original motion; we reverse and remand for the post-conviction court to consider the additional issues raised in Mr. Cherenfant’s amended motion.
In 2005, Mr. Cherenfant was convicted of lewd and lascivious battery. He is serving an eight-year sentence. No direct appeal was filed. In February 2006, Mr. Cherenfant filed his motion for postconviction relief. In February 2007, he filed an amended motion on the same day that the postconviction court summarily denied three claims in Mr. Cherenfant’s original motion and ordered an evidentiary hearing on the fourth. In its final order denying the original motion after the evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court did not mention the amended motion. We see nothing in the record suggesting that the postconviction court ruled on the amended claims.
We find no error in the postconviction court’s denial of Mr. Cherenfant’s original claims. However, because the amended motion was timely filed and pending when the postconviction court ruled on the original motion, we reverse and remand for consideration of the additional issues raised by Mr. Cherenfant. See McAbee v. State, 873 So. 2d 545, 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Ramirez v. State, 854 So. 2d 805, 806-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 854 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- McABEE v. State, 873 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)