NELSON VIERA, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to address the issues raised in the defendant's post-conviction petition.
[1] A trial court order denying relief on a post-conviction petition must address the issues raised in the petition.
[2] A trial court order denying a post-conviction petition must attach record excerpts conclusively showing the appellant is not entitled to relief when summarily denying the…
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 intelligenceThe defendant filed a post-conviction petition raising seven issues. The trial court issued an order that failed to address these issues, instead ruli…
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 Summary Denial Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Nelson Viera seeks appeal from a September 20, 2011, order that failed to address the issues set forth in an underlying post-conviction petition filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.
The September 20, 2011, order on appeal denied relief based on a sentencing issue previously raised and determined on appeal.1 That issue was not raised in the Rule 3.850 petition that was filed by the defendant and docketed on July 7, 2011. In fact, the defendant in his July 7, 2011, petition acknowledges that the sentencing issue was resolved. The order on appeal, however, does not address the seven issues raised in the Rule 3.850 petition filed below.2
Because the order on appeal does not address the facially sufficient issues raised in the defendant’s petition filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, and because the record now before us fails to make the required showing that the defendant is not entitled to the relief he seeks, we reverse the order and remand for consideration of the July 7, 2011, petition on the merits of the issues raised, either by an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief. If the trial court enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any *1125relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), (D).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.