ALFRED ISAAC, 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.
Alfred Isaac appealed the trial court's denial of his post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's handling of two claims but reversed the summary denial of nine claims due to the trial court's failure to attach required portions of the record to its order.
The court affirmed the trial court's handling of claims I and XI but reversed the summary denial of claims II through X because the trial court failed to attach the portions of the record that it relied upon to summarily dismiss these claims, and remanded for the trial court to either attach the referenced record portions or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a post-conviction motion must be reversed and remanded when the court fails to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute th…
[2] On remand, a trial court must either attach the portions of the record referenced in its order or conduct an evidentiary hearing if necessary to address post-conviction c…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 failed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting claims II through X and that the trial court's summary of denial of these claims must be reversed and remanded for attachment of the portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims.”
Establishes the basis for reversal—failure to attach required record portions to the summary denial order
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsaac filed a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising ten grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and one d…
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 Double Jeopardy Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Alfred Isaac, Appellant, challenges the trial court’s denial of his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the motion, Appellant alleged ten grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and presented one double jeopardy claim. We affirm the trial court’s non-summary denial of claim I and summary denial of claim XI without further discussion. However, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of claims II through X.
In support of its summary denial of claims II through X, the trial court identified nine documents as attachments to its order. These documents, however, were not actually attached to the trial court’s order. The State correctly concedes that the trial court failed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting claims II through X and that the trial court’s summary of denial of these claims must be reversed and remanded for attachment of the portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims. See Doss v. State, 644 So.2d 124, 125-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (reversing and remanding claims where the trial court relied on the record in finding the claims without merit but failed to attach pertinent portions of the record to the order summarily denying the claims); see also Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 823, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (reversal and remand appropriate where some records were referred to in the order, but they were not attached as required by Rule 3.850). On remand, we direct the trial court to attach the portions of the record referenced in its order as to claims II through X or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on these claims, if necessary.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.
HAWKES, C.J., BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 90 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…PER CURIAM. The summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconvietion relief is reversed because the trial court failed to attach the portions of the record it relied upon in denying the motion. See Isaac v. State, 45 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). On the remand, the trial court is directed to attach the relevant portions of the record to its order. Id. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. DAVIS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Johnson v. State, 80 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ns of the record showing that the appellant is not entitled to relief. Although the trial court’s order referred to portions of the record that supported denial, the record was not attached to the order as required by rule 3.850. See Isaac v. State, 45 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The trial court’s denial of the remaining grounds is affirmed. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions. LEWIS, ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Thomas v. State, 97 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…PER CURIAM. The summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief is reversed because the trial court failed to attach the portions of the record it relied upon in denying the motion. See Isaac v. State, 45 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). On remand, the trial court is directed to attach the relevant portions of the record to its order. Id. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- L.L. v. Woolsey, 583 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Doss v. State, 644 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)