KEVIN LEE ELLIOTT, 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 reversed trial court's summary denial of post-conviction relief motion, holding that the trial court must either attach record portions conclusively refuting claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing, and must allow amendment of pleadings.
A trial court must either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute post-conviction relief claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing, and must allow amendment of legally insufficient pleadings.
[1] When a trial court denies a post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule 3.850, it must either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims or co…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to allow a defendant at least one opportunity to amend a legally insufficient post-conviction relief motion.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Absent attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute claims, a 'summary denial is improper, and an evidentiary hearing is required.'”
Court citing Washington v. State regarding the requirement for evidentiary hearing when record portions do not conclusively refute claims.
Kevin Lee Elliott filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850, which the trial court denied without attaching records that conc…
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
Kevin Lee Elliott challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief, which failed to attach records that conclusively demonstrate no entitlement to relief. In addition, he challenges the trial court’s failure to conduct an evi-dentiary hearing or allow amendment of his pleadings. We reverse to require that the trial court either attach portions of the *415record that conclusively refute Elliott’s claims in counts one, four, seven, and eight of his complaint, or absent such records, hold an evidentiary hearing. See Washington v. State, 10 So.3d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (Absent attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute claims, a “summary denial is improper, and an evidentiary hearing is required.”). As to other counts, Elliott should be given the opportunity to amend his claim. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 762 (Fla. 2007) (“[W]hen a defendant’s initial rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief is determined to be legally insufficient for failure to meet either the rule’s or other pleading requirements, the trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to allow the defendant at least one opportunity to amend the motion.”).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Kirkland Washington v. State, 10 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)