KEITH J. PRESSEY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of postconviction relief motion because trial court failed to state rationale or attach refuting records, and remanded for opportunity to amend.
When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, it must state its rationale or attach specific record parts refuting each claim.
[1] A trial court denying a rule 3.850 postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing must either state its rationale in the decision or attach specific record parts re…
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 intelligence“When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing, it must 'either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.'”
Court stating the procedural requirement for denying postconviction relief motions
Keith Pressey filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing. The trial judge denied…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
Keith Pressey filed a rule 3.850 motion seeking postconviction relief. The trial judge denied the motion without ordering a response from the state or attaching records to refute the claims. Also, the court did not state any reason for the denial in its order. ‘When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evi-dentiary hearing, it must ‘either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.’ ” Smith v. State, 956 So.2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993)).
The trial court’s order in this case does neither. However, review of Pres-sey’s motion reveals that his allegations are deficient with respect to his claim that counsel was ineffective during the sentencing hearing. See generally Ferrell v. State, 918 So.2d 163, 172 (Fla.2005); Rivera v. State, 1 So.3d 1158 (Fla. '2d DCA 2009). Consequently, the trial court’s summary denial should have been without prejudice to Pressey’s right to file an amended motion. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of Pressey’s claim and remand for the circuit court to grant him leave to amend his motion. Thereafter, the trial court should proceed in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).
WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1993)
- Ferrell v. State, 918 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2005)
- Sierra v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Rivera v. State, 1 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)