ANDRES AMBROSIO DUQUESNE
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.
When a trial court denies a postconviction relief motion but fails to address all claims presented, the case must be remanded for the trial court to make determinations on the remaining claims.
[1] A trial court's order denying a postconviction relief motion must address all claims presented; failure to do so requires remand for consideration of the unaddressed clai…
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 trial court order that does not address all of the claims for post-conviction relief will be remanded for entry of an order that does.”
Court citing Schrack v. State in support of remand requirement
Andres Ambrosio Duquesne appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on eight claims of ineffective assistance of cou…
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 Strickland Standard For Ineffective Assistance cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
Andres Ambrosio Duquesne appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he raised eight claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm, but note the order denying Duquesne’s motion only addressed four of the eight issues alleged. Thus, we remand for the trial court to make a determination as to the remaining claims. See Schrack v. State, 958 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“A trial court order that does not address all of the claims for post-conviction relief will be remanded for entry of an order that does.”) (citations omitted); Currelly v. State, 801 So. 2d 1000, 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“We conclude that the trial court should have treated this motion as a postconviction relief motion . . . and addressed all three grounds presented.”).
Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Currelly v. State, 801 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Schrack v. State, 958 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)