ELBERT D. HANEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2009-06-10
No. 4D08-4596
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
10 So. 3d 1180 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2009)

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.


Holding

The court held that the defendant's rule 3.850 motion was timely filed and should be reviewed for sufficiency and evidentiary hearing requirements.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant sought post-conviction relief via a rule 3.850 motion. After a prior remand, the trial court did not consider the motion's merits but in…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Elbert Haney seeks review of an order that denied his rule 3.850 motion, following *1181this court’s remand. See Haney v. State, 987 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In that case we concluded that Haney’s motion was not successive, and that any reference by this court to treatment of a prior case as a rule 3.850 appeal was inadvertent. See id. at 234. The case was remanded for further review of the motion.

Following remand, the claims were not considered. Rather, challenges to the timeliness of the motion were made, with related arguments that the claims were not based on newly discovered evidence.

As the motion was timely filed, we remand once again. On remand, the sufficiency of the motion and its specific claims are to be reviewed in light of the standard for determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required in a post-conviction proceeding. The trial court is to examine each claim to determine if it is legally sufficient, and, if so, determine whether it is refuted by the record. See, e.g., Williamson v. State, 994 So.2d 1000, 1006 (Fla.2008) (citing Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000)).

Reversed and remanded.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw