ANTONIO PUENTE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2013-04-26
No. 2D12-2818
DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
113 So. 3d 89 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2013)

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.


Holding

The appellate court held that the postconviction court erred by failing to attach portions of the record refuting the movant's claims. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on those grounds.


Facts & Procedural History

Antonio Puente was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced to twenty years. After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, he filed…

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.


Opinion of the Court
KELLY, Judge.

KELLY, Judge.

Antonio Puente appeals the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse on grounds one through three, eight, and nine and remand for further proceedings. We affirm on grounds five through seven without further comment.

Puente was found guilty by a jury of aggravated battery with a firearm, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, he filed a rule 3.850 motion raising ten grounds.

The postconviction court found that the record refuted grounds one through three, eight, and nine, but it failed to attach the relevant portions of the record to its order. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (“In those instances when the denial is not predicated on the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order.”). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order with regard to grounds one through three, eight, and nine and remand for the post-conviction court to attach the portions of the record that conclusively refute these grounds or hold an evidentiary hearing. See id.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw