ROBERT GREENBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2009-11-04
No. 4D09-216
GROSS, C.J., POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
19 So. 3d 1184 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 trial court erred by summarily denying a rule 3.850 motion without ordering a response, attaching records, or providing an explanation.


Facts & Procedural History

Robert Greenberg appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary p…

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.

Robert Greenberg appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. In his motion, Green-berg alleged several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He also alleged that his plea was involuntary because he was suffering from depression and he was under the influence of psychiatric and pain medications that prevented him from understanding the plea and the defenses available if he proceeded to trial. The trial court denied Greenberg’s motion without ordering a response from the state, attaching any records, or providing any explanation. See, e.g., McClendon v. State, 862 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

On appeal, the state argues that the claims are facially insufficient or refuted by the record, citing documents and portions of the plea transcript which are not part of the record on appeal in this case. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A).

There are no records attached to the trial court’s order to refute the claims, and the trial court failed to give Greenberg an opportunity to amend facially insufficient claims pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). Because the trial court’s order does not comply with the procedure in rule 3.850(d) or Spera, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

*1185 Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.

GROSS, C.J., POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw