LEONARD TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be reversed and remanded unless the record conclusively shows the defendant is entitled to no relief.
The defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, which included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and othe…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Leonard Taylor (“the defendant”) appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The defendant filed a rule 3.850 motion containing several claims of alleged error. Claims 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12 of the defendant’s rule 3.850 motion raised ineffective assistance of trial counsel. These claims are properly the subject of a postconviction relief motion. See McKinney v. State, 579 So.2d 80 (Fla.1991). The State has conceded, and we agree, that as to these claims we must reverse unless the record conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
*421Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse and remand for attachment of record excerpts conclusively showing that the defendant is not entitled to any relief or for an evidentiary hearing. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.
As to the remaining claims, they were or should have been previously raised in the defendant’s appeal from the judgment of conviction, which this Court affirmed. See Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1995); Taylor v. State, 925 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand the order appealed from for further proceedings on claims 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12, and affirm as to all other claims.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orientus Werner v. State, 31 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…oncededly entitled or for attachment of those portions of the record which demonstrate that such relief has already been granted. Mendoza v. State, 20 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); George v. State, 19 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Taylor v. State, 19 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Fernandez v. State, 18 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1995)
- Boris McKINNEY v. State, 579 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1991)