GUIES ULYSSES JOHNSON, 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.
The court held that the trial court's summary denial of some grounds was affirmed, but others required further proceedings due to an incomplete record.
The appellant filed motions for postconviction relief, which were summarily denied by the trial court. The record on appeal was incomplete, lacking at…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Guies Ulysses Johnson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief and his amended motion for postconviction relief. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.
In his original motion for postconviction relief, Johnson raised six grounds, some of which included subparts. On April 11,2016, the trial court entered an order summarily denying all of Johnson’s claims, except “Ground 2E.” Johnson was afforded an *273opportunity to file an amended motion as to this ground. Because the trial court’s order did not resolve all of Johnson’s claims, it was a non-final, non-appealahle order. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4).
On December 29, 2016, the trial court entered an order summarily denying Johnson’s amended motion. Attached to the trial court’s order was its original order of April 11, 2016, but not the attachments thereto. As a result, our record consists of the order (with attachments) denying Johnson’s amended motion and the order (without attachments) summarily dénying Johnson’s original motion. Based on the limited record before us, we affirm the summary denial of “Grounds 1, 2A, 2C, 2E, 2F and 4.” However, we reverse and remand for record attachments that conclusively refute Johnson’s claims, or an evi-dentiary hearing on “Grounds 2B, 2D, 2G, 3, 5, and 6.”
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., and ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.