ADAM S. WALTERS, 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 an order denying postconviction motions must articulate reasoning and comply with rules of criminal procedure.
Appellant appealed the summary denial of his motions to vacate sentence, vacate judgment and sentence, and reduce sentence. The postconviction court's…
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 Reduction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Adam S. Walters appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate sentence, motion to vacate judgment and sentence, and motion to reduce sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), 3.850, and 3.800(c). An order denying a rule 3.800(c) motion on its merits is not appealable. Accordingly, we limit our review to the portions of the postconviction court’s order denying Walters’ 3.800(a) and 3.850 motions. See Akins v. State, 926 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Morrow v. State, 799 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
The postconviction court’s order was entered upon relinquishment of jurisdiction by this court from Walters’ appeal of an oral order denying his motions. The written order contains no findings, explanation, or record attachments, and it does not advise Walters of his right to appeal; it simply denies his motions. This was error and requires reversal. See, e.g., Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1993); Lott v. State, 865 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
We therefore reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for reconsideration of the rule 3.800(a) and 3.850 motions. On remand, the trial court shall enter an order that articulates its reasoning and otherwise complies with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
CASANUEVA and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 26 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…motions should articulate a factual or legal basis supporting the order to provide the opportunity for meaningful judicial review and perhaps to convince the prisoner that the order is correct and does not need to be appealed. See Walters v. State, 994 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).…
-
Jones v. State, 28 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…trust the trial court to [*983] fulfill this promise with no recourse if the trial judge welched on the deal. A motion to mitigate under rule 3.800(c) is discretionary with the trial court and the resulting order is not appealable. Walters v. State, 994 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Although we are entirely confident that this trial judge would have honored his promise, Mr. Jones’s decision to appeal during the allotted thirty days was only prudent. Because the court did not require the State to prove the c…
-
Barrington v. State, 46 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…post-conviction relief under rule 3.800(a) and/or rule 3.850, the order should include a statement of appellate rights even though appellate review of the order will be limited to the denial of the rule 3.800(a)/3.850 motions. See Walters v. State, 994 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Akins v. State, 926 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Morrow v. State, 799 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Lott v. State, 865 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Williams v. State, 865 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)