SCHIEDENHELM
v.
STATE
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.
A summary denial of a postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim is improper when the claim is legally and facially sufficient and the record attachments do not conclusively refute it.
[1] A postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 that is legally and facially sufficient and not conclusively re…
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 intelligenceJeromy Schiedenhelm appealed a trial court order denying his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in which he raised eight separate ineffective…
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 Loan Sharking cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JEROMY STEPHEN SCHIEDENHELM, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-3504 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 31, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.
Jeromy Stephen Schiedenhelm, Live Oak, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM. Appellant, Jeromy Schiedenhelm, appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, where he raised eight claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Appellant filed a legally and facially sufficient claim in ground six, and the attachments do not conclusively refute the claim, we reverse the summary denial of ground six and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim. See Cioeta v. State, 204 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). In all other respects,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY, and WALLIS JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cioeta v. State, 204 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Jeromy S. Schiedenhelm v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)