TIMOTHY SHIELDS, 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.
Timothy Shields appealed post-conviction relief denials following his conviction for aggravated assault and firearm possession. The appellate court affirmed the summary denials of some ineffective assistance of counsel claims but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make required findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding claims decided after an evidentiary hearing.
The court affirmed the summary denial of certain claims but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to comply with Rule 3.850(d), which mandates that when an evidentiary hearing is held, the court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the issues presented. Without such findings, the appellate court cannot reach the merits of the claims.
[1] A trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to claims considered at an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief.
[2] An appellate court cannot reach the merits of a post-conviction relief claim that was considered at an evidentiary hearing if the trial court failed to issue findings of…
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“If an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall grant a prompt hearing thereon and shall cause notice thereof to be served on the state attorney, determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”
Rule 3.850(d) requirement that trial courts make findings of fact and conclusions of law when deciding post-conviction relief claims after evidentiary hearing
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShields was convicted in separate trials of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appealed the …
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 Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Timothy Shields appeals a St. Lucie Circuit Court order denying some of the claims he raised in his motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, and an earlier order summarily denying his remaining claims.
Shields was convicted, in separate trials, of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in the other. He appealed his conviction and sentence in the possession case only, and this Court affirmed without opinion in Shields v. State, 869 So.2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). He then timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850 raising six claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The trial court summarily denied portions of grounds one and two of the mo*386tion, relating to the prosecutor’s opening statement, and grounds three and six. It then ordered an evidentiary hearing on the remaining grounds. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, a successor trial court judge advised that he would later rule on the record. There is no record of the court having ruled. Instead, it appears that the trial court entered a written order stating that the claims entertained at the evidentiary hearing were being denied based on findings announced in open court. No such findings or conclusions are in the record.
We affirm without further comment the trial court’s summary denial of those portions of grounds one and two as identified by the court, as well as grounds three and six. However, we are unable to reach the merits of Shields’s challenges to the trial court’s denial of those claims considered after evidentiary hearing, given the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rule 3.850(d) provides in part: “If an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall grant a prompt hearing thereon and shall cause notice thereof to be served on the state attorney, determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.” (emphasis added).
Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law on those claims considered at the evidentiary hearing. Miller v. State, 908 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Thomas v. State, 954 So.2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Affirmed in part, Reversed and Remanded in part with instructions.
POLEN, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shields v. State, 82 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…f fact and conclusions of law following the evidentiary hearing. Now that we have the complete record, we grant rehearing and Avithdraw our prior opinions in Shields v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2466 (Fla. 4th DCA July 6, 2011) and Shields v. State, 59 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). We substitute this opinion in place of those previously issued. [*1030] Based on the record now before this court, the trial court’s orders in this case, summarily denying some of appellant’s claims and denying others following…
Authorities Cited
- Carlton Tyrone Thomas v. State, 954 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Mills v. State, 908 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)