FRANK SALABARRIA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Frank Salabarria appealed from the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the record was insufficient to demonstrate that Salabarria was entitled to no relief, as the trial court's order was ambiguous about which motions were being decided and failed to provide supporting documentation.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order because the record did not conclusively show that Salabarria was entitled to no relief. The court could not discern from the sole order provided which motions had been adjudicated, whether they were successive, or whether they were proper subjects for post-conviction relief rather than appeal.
[1] An appellate court must reverse an order denying post-conviction relief when the record does not conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief.
[2] An order denying a motion for rehearing may also deny a pending motion for post-conviction relief.
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 record before us does not conclusively show that Salabarria is entitled to no relief”
Establishes the standard for reversal: the appellate record must conclusively demonstrate no relief is warranted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSalabarria filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court issued an order on July 21, 2011, denyi…
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Frank Salabarria appeals from a July 21, 2011, order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief and from a May 18, 2012, order denying rehearing thereon. We reverse the order on review because the record before us does not conclusively show that Salabarria is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A) and (D). More particularly, the only order that has been provided to this court is the order purportedly denying Salabarria’s motion for rehearing issued in May of this year. That order is titled “ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF,” and suggests that it is not only an order denying Salabarria’s motion for rehearing but also an order denying at least one of two pending Rule 3.850 motions as well:
*232THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on the defendant, Frank Sala-barria’s, pro se motion for post conviction relief and this Court having reviewed the motion, the State’s response thereto, the court files and the records in this case, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises therein, hereby denies the defendant’s Motion on the following grounds:
The defendant presently asks for rehearing and/or moves this court to reconsider its ruling in the matter denied on 7/21/11. The present motion should be denied because his arguments are successive, have no legal basis to be reheard, and the arguments previously made on this point are of the kind that should and could have been raised on appeal.
Compounding the confusion inherent in this order, is the fact that no copy of any motions or orders that would support the trial court’s conclusion that Salabarria’s arguments are successive have been provided to this court. In sum, on the record before us we cannot discern what motion or motions have been adjudicated by the sole order provided to us, much less that the motion or motions being adjudicated are either successive or are the proper subject of an appeal rather than a post-conviction motion.
Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing that Sala-barria is entitled to no relief, we reverse and remand for attachment of those portions of the record which conclusively show that Salabarria is entitled to no relief or alternatively for an evidentiary hearing on his motions.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carroll v. State, 164 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…tinez v. State, 842 So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), Further, an order denying a postconviction motion as procedurally barred may be reversed where the record does not reflect that the defendant is not entitled to relief. See Salabarria v. State, 100 So. 3d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). In the instant case, the appellant alleged in his motion that he was sentenced in all four cases that were the subject of the motion on September 4, 2013. If this allegation is true, the appellant’s motion, filed on Septemb…