WILLIAM R. HARVEY, 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.
William Harvey appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion in three criminal cases. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to address his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and did not attach records conclusively refuting them, requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing.
No. The trial court failed to adequately address the ineffective assistance of counsel claims or attach portions of the trial record conclusively refuting them. The court's orders must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to properly address these claims.
[1] A postconviction court must address ineffective assistance of counsel claims, either procedurally or substantively.
[2] A postconviction court's orders must attach portions of the trial record that conclusively refute ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
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“Because the postconviction court's orders failed to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claims or attach those portions of the trial record that conclusively refute these claims, we reverse.”
The court's primary holding explaining the basis for reversal—failure to address ineffective assistance claims or provide conclusive refutation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarvey was originally sentenced in 1992 for kidnapping and sexual battery. During probation, he allegedly committed two additional crimes. He admitted…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
William R. Harvey appeals final orders in three circuit court cases disposing of his motion for postconviction relief founded on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the postconviction court’s orders failed to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claims or attach those portions of the trial record that conclusively refute these claims, we reverse.
For crimes of kidnapping and sexual battery committed in 1992, Harvey was sentenced to incarceration followed by probation. During his probationary term, he allegedly committed two new crimes. He admitted violating probation and pleaded guilty to the new crimes. The court revoked his probation and imposed further prison terms for the kidnapping and sexual battery offenses. The court also imposed concurrent prison terms for the two new offenses.
Following the revocation of probation, Harvey timely sought postconviction relief. His rule 3.850 motion asserted errors in the judgment and sentencing documents in all three cases and ineffective assistance of counsel in advising him to plead to the violation of probation and the two new charges. At the evidentiary hearing scheduled to resolve his motion, his post-conviction counsel and the assistant state attorney reached an agreement resolving the errors apparent on the judgment and sentencing documents. But for reasons unknown, the hearing concluded without taking evidence on or resolving the ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The postconviction court’s final orders corrected the judgment and sentencing documents but did not dispose of the various ineffective assistance claims, either procedurally or substantively. Neither did any order have attachments conclusively refuting Harvey’s ineffective assistance claims. See Hempstead v. State, 980 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing a summary denial of postconviction relief because the postconviction court did not adequately address a claim and the order and attachments did not conclusively refute the claim). So Harvey appealed the orders, arguing that his ineffective assistance claims must be addressed, but the orders correcting the judgment and sentencing documents need not be because they properly resolved those errors.
On appeal, the State concedes that a proper evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the overlooked claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See House v. State, 869 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Therefore, we reverse the orders in these three cases that failed to address the ineffective assistance claims and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- House v. State, 869 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)