LARRY RUNGE, 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.
Larry Runge appeals the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion containing ten claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirms dismissal of the tenth claim but reverses and remands nine claims, finding the trial court erred by summarily denying them without attaching supporting record portions and without allowing amendment of allegedly deficient pleadings.
The trial court erred in summarily denying nine of the ten claims. The court must either grant Runge leave to amend any deficient claims under Spera or deny specific claims as refuted by the record with supporting record attachments clearly identified. The tenth claim regarding jail credits is affirmed as abandoned but without prejudice to relief under Rule 3.800(a).
[1] A trial court may not summarily deny post-conviction relief claims based on a state's response that argues claims are refuted by the record without attaching the relevant…
[2] A state may not supplement the record on appeal by filing relevant record portions directly in the appellate court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The trial court's order denying post-conviction relief was based on the State's response, which contained arguments that, at least some, if not all of the claims, were conclusively refuted by portions of the record. However, no portions of the record were actually attached to the State's response or the trial court's order adopting the State's reasons as grounds for the summary denial.”
Establishes the fundamental procedural error: summary denial without attaching the record portions allegedly refuting the claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRunge filed a post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising ten separate claims of ineffective assistance of tr…
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 Legally Insufficient Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Larry Runge appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Runge raised ten separate claims in his motion, but in his appellate brief, he appears to have abandoned his tenth claim where he argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to claim entitlement to jail credits for time served in Dade County and King County Jails. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the tenth claim without prejudice to Runge’s right to seek any relief available on that issue under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, we reverse and remand the trial court’s summary denial of Runge’s nine remaining claims for the reasons below.
The trial court’s order denying post-conviction relief was based on the State’s response, which contained arguments that, at least some, if not all of the claims, were conclusively refuted by portions of the record. However, no portions of the record were actually attached to the State’s response or the trial court’s order adopting the State’s reasons as grounds for the summary denial. The State is not permitted to supplement the record on appeal by filing the relevant portions of the record directly in this Court. Hastings v. State, 670 So.2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Moreover, the State’s response, on which the trial court relied, included arguments that some of the claims were legally and factually insufficient. We agree with Runge’s argument that the trial court erred to the extent that it summarily denied his claims as legally insufficient without giving him an opportunity to amend them to cure any pleading defects. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007).
Finally, the trial court’s order did not address any of the claims raised with any degree of specificity. Even the State’s response addressed some claims by number and others more broadly as either legally insufficient or refuted by the record. As such, we cannot determine the precise grounds assigned by the trial court for its denial of the specific grounds in question. Accordingly, as to the nine claims remaining, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either grant leave to Runge to amend any particular claims under Spera, or deny specified claims as refuted by the record with supporting record attachments.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part.
TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ceyron Pascoe v. State, 225 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…th DCA 2012) (recognizing that this practice is improper). While the State furnishes the sentencing documents to this Court, it is not permitted to supplement the record on appeal. Vega v. State, 110 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Runge v. State, 24 So. 3d 768, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Consequently, we reverse and remand. Should the trial court summarily deny this claim again, it must attach record documents conclusively demonstrating that appellant received all of the jail credit such that his proper rem…
-
Vega v. State, 110 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…o show cause: that counsel was ineffective in conceding Vega’s guilt to the jury without his approval. However, the state may not supplement the record on appeal by filing the relevant portions of the record directly with this court. Runge v. State, 24 So. 3d 768, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing Hastings v. State, 670 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). Accordingly, the order is reversed in part and remanded either for attachment of portions of the record refuting the claim [*966] or for an evidentiary…
-
Ruiz v. State, 233 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…y, Twenty-One, and grounds A and B—because the trial court’s order did not specifically address any of these claims in a manner from which we can determine the lower court’s precise reason for denying each claim, we must reverse. See Runge v. State, 24 So. 3d 768, 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“[T]he trial court’s order did not address any of the claims raised with any degree of specificity.... As such, we cannot determine the precise grounds assigned by the trial court for its denial of the specific grounds in q…
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
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Stanley Marsh & Sons, Inc. v. Niagara Distribs., Inc., 670 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hastings v. State, 670 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)