FRITZ ALISME
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court must either attach record portions that conclusively refute a legally sufficient Rule 3.850 motion or conduct an evidentiary hearing; summary denial without such attachments or a state response is error.
[1] When a trial court summarily denies a legally sufficient Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion based on the record, it must attach the portions of the files and records…
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“If the denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the final order.”
Rule 3.850(f)(5) requirement for summary denial of postconviction motions
Fritz Alisme appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion challenging DNA evidence admitted at trial based on the combined proba…
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 Dna Evidence Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
FRITZ ALISME, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D19-429
[October 23, 2019]
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-22392CF10A.
Fritz Alisme, Florida City, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Fritz Alisme challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Appellant claimed the DNA evidence admitted at trial was based on the inappropriate use of the combined probability of inclusion (CPI) method in making a match. The trial court did not order a state response to Appellant’s motion before it summarily denied it, without explanation and without any record attachments refuting Appellant’s contention. On appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion in this fashion. In response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause, the State concedes trial court error, citing to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(5).1
2
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for either record attachments that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or, alternatively, for an evidentiary hearing. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5), (8).
Reversed and remanded.
CIKLIN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * *