DYLAN HARRIS, 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.
Dylan Harris appeals the post-conviction court's summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.850, alleging his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a five-year plea offer. The appellate court reversed the summary denial of this claim, finding it was sufficiently pled and not conclusively refuted by the record, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing or production of record evidence.
The court reversed the summary denial of claim two because the State's response failed to cite record support refuting the ineffective assistance claim, and documents prepared to refute post-conviction claims are not substitutes for an evidentiary hearing. The court remanded for the post-conviction court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim.
[1] A post-conviction court may summarily deny a claim only if the claim is facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.
[2] Documents prepared to refute claims in a post-conviction motion are not substitutes for an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.”
Establishes the standard for upholding a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion; the State failed to meet this standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris filed a rule 3.850 motion claiming his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to present a five-year plea offer. Harris alleged that durin…
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 Standard Of Review For Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
Dylan Harris (the defendant) appeals the post-conviction court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief. See Fla. R. App. P. 3.850. Because claim two of the defendant’s motion is sufficiently pled and not refuted by the record, we reverse the summary denial of same. We affirm in all other respects.
The defendant filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging, in claim 2, that counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a five-year plea offer. The motion alleged that, *974during the plea hearing, the defendant overheard a conversation between defense counsel and the prosecutor during which the prosecutor asked why the defendant never accepted the five-year plea offer. Additionally, the motion alleged that, had defense counsel presented the five-year offer to him, he would have accepted it, the State would not have withdrawn it, the post-conviction court would have accepted it, and the sentence under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than the sentence actually imposed. See Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013). The State filed a written response asserting that the prosecutor never made a five-year plea offer to defense counsel. Relying on the State’s response, the post-conviction court summarily denied this claim.
The defendant argues that the post-conviction court erred in so ruling because the State’s response failed to cite to any record support for the claim that no five-year offer had been made. We agree.
“The standard of review of a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion is de novo.” Lebron v. State, 827[100] So.3d 132, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948, 954 (Fla. 2002)). To uphold the summary denial, “the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.” Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.860(d)); see also Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2002)[ (Fla. 2000) ].
Hird v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1638 (Fla. 5th DCA July 15, 2016).
“Documents prepared to refute claims in a postconviction motion are not substitutes for an evidentiary hearing .... ” Flores v. State, 662 So.2d 1350, 1351-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see also Smalls v. State, 18 So.3d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that court impermissi-bly relied on photographs attached to the State’s response, that were not part of the record, in summarily denying the post-conviction motion).
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of claim 2 and remand for the post-conviction court to either conduct an evi-dentiary hearing or attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim. See Warren v. State, 149 So.3d 738, 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (reversing summary denial of post-conviction claim where attachments did not conclusively refute claim and remanding for attachments or eviden-tiary hearing).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 223 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…reliable trial. See id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Because Walker’s motion was summarily denied, we review the order de novo to determine whether the record conclusively refutes his claims or if his claims fail as a matter of law. See Harris v. State, 204 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Walker alleges that his tidal counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress a photo lineup that was unnecessarily suggestive because Walker was the only man in the lineup with “extensive facial scarring.” 3 The p…
-
Rios v. State, 322 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)…. In all other respects, we affirm. “‘The standard of review of a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion is de novo.’ To uphold the summary denial, ‘the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.’” Harris v. State, 204 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citation omitted) (first quoting Lebron v. State, 100 So. 3d 132, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); and then quoting Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999)). As such, we review a summarily denied claim for legal sufficiency…
-
Williams v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- McLIN v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2002)
- Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1999)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)
- Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Smalls v. State, 18 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Warren v. State, 149 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)