BOBBY LEE SAVIORY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2016-09-30
No. 5D16-1477
PALMER, EVANDER, and BERGER, JJ„ concur.
201 So. 3d 214 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2016) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

Bobby Lee Saviory appeals the denial of his postconviction relief motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. His lawyer allegedly gave improper advice that he could appeal a non-dispositive motion to suppress after entering a no contest plea. The appellate court reverses and remands because the record does not conclusively show the motion to suppress was non-dispositive.


Holding

The summary denial was improper. The record does not support a finding that the motion to suppress was non-dispositive, nor does it contain sufficient facts to imply such a finding. The case must be reversed and remanded for attachment of records conclusively refuting the claim or for an evidentiary hearing.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no…

[2] A trial court's failure to expressly find that a motion to suppress was dispositive does not preclude a defendant from appealing the ruling on the motion to suppress if d…

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

Key Quotes

“The limited record before us does not support the conclusion that the issue raised in the motion to suppress was dispositive, nor does it contain sufficient facts for us to imply such a finding.”

Establishes that the trial court failed to make a clear finding regarding dispositiveness, requiring reversal of the summary denial.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Saviory entered a no contest plea after his motion to suppress was denied. His trial counsel advised him that he could appeal the ruling on the motion…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Lee Saviory appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, which alleged counsel was ineffective for improperly advising him that he could appeal a non-dispositive motion to suppress after entering a no contest plea. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. The limited record before us does not support the conclusion that the issue raised in the motion to suppress was dispositive, nor does it contain sufficient facts for us to imply such a finding. See Leisure v. State, 429 So.2d 434, 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (explaining trial court’s failure to expressly find that the issue was dispositive does not mean the defendant waived his right to appeal ruling on motion to suppress as disposi-tiveness can be implied); Lamb v. State, 55 So.3d 751, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (concluding that “[b]ecause the trial court gave Lamb the impression that she was preserving her right to appeal the ruling on her motion to suppress, we conclude that a finding of dispositiveness can be inferred from the record”). Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of Sa-viory’s motion and remand for the attachment of records conclusively refuting his claim or for an evidentiary hearing.1 See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996))).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, EVANDER, and BERGER, JJ„ concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw