DONALD R. LEGRANDE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed summary denial of postconviction relief on three grounds but reversed and remanded on two grounds alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion for new trial and request a limiting jury instruction, and remanded the cumulative error claim for reconsideration.
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 relief or the motion is legally insufficient.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless the motion, files, and records conclusively demonstrate the defendant is entitl…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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.”
Court's statement of the legal standard for postconviction relief motions, citing Freeman v. State.
LeGrande was convicted and filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising six grounds, including clai…
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 Principals Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
Donald R. LeGrande appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of *147Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Four, and Five. However, because the record does not conclusively refute LeGrande’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for new trial and' failing to request a limiting jury instruction indicating that the “principals” instruction did not apply to conspiracy, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds Two and Three and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. 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))). As two of LeGrande’s claims require reversal for attachment of the record or evidentiary hearing, we also remand Ground Six, which alleges cumulative error, for further consideration.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PALMER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turem v. State, 220 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…this deficiency, See id. at 355 (citing Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)). Finally, we reverse the summary denial of ground eight and remand for reconsideration based upon our reversal here of the individual claims. See Legrande v. State, 206 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“As two of Legrande’s claims require reversal for attachment of the record or evidentiary hearing, we also remand ground six, which alleges cumulative error, for further consideration.”). In sum, we; (1) treat grounds one,…
-
White v. State, 226 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…efute all aspects of Appellant’s claims in ground four. In ground six, Appellant asserts cumulative error. Because we are reversing and remanding as to grounds three and four, we also reverse and remand on this [*352] ground. See Legrande v. State, 206 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ.,' concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)