JOHNNY LAFLIPPE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2022-03-23
No. 21-1434
Scales, J., Gordo, J., Lobree, J., Venzer, J.
338 So. 3d 348 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2022) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion and remanded because the trial court failed to make required findings of fact and conclusions of law after holding an evidentiary hearing.

Holding

When a trial court holds an evidentiary hearing on a facially sufficient Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, it must make findings of fact and conclusions of law; summary denial without such findings requires reversal and remand.

Headnotes

[1] When a trial court holds an evidentiary hearing on a timely, facially sufficient Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, it must make findings of fact and conclusions of law; f…

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
Key Quotes

“the trial court "shall determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto."”

Citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(A) and Marcus v. State regarding the trial court's mandatory duty after an evidentiary hearing.
Facts & Procedural History

Johnny LaFlippe appealed a trial court order denying his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion following an evidentiary hearing in a Miami-Dade County crim…

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.

Topics
Waiver Of Issues Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law Postconviction Motion Conclusions Of Law

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie LaFlippe appeals the trial court’s June 4, 2021 order that, following an evidentiary hearing, summarily denied as legally insufficient LaFlippe’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Where, as here, an evidentiary hearing is held to resolve a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.850 postconviction motion, the trial court “shall determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(A); Marcus v. State, 201 So. 3d 851, 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). When the trial court fails to do so, “the proper remedy is to direct the trial court on remand to determine whether it can make the necessary findings and conclusions based upon the record that will show appellant was not entitled to relief.” Id. Accordingly, we reverse the June 4, 2021 order and remand for the trial court to make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the claim in LaFlippe’s rule 3.850 postconviction motion.

Reversed and remanded.1

Footnotes
1 In its briefing to this Court, the State notes for the first time that LaFlippe’s postconviction motion is missing the certification that LaFlippe “can understand English” or, if he cannot, that he “has had the motion translated completely into a language that [he] understands.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n)(2). While the omission may have been “grounds for the entry of an order dismissing the motion,” id., the State failed to raise this issue in the
2 lower proceeding. The issue, therefore, was waived. See Carter v. State, 706 So. 2d 873, 874 n.1 (Fla. 1997).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Villatoro v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
    …re, an evidentiary hearing is held to resolve a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.850 postconviction motion, the trial court ‘shall determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.’” LaFlippe v. State, 338 So. 3d 348, 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(A)). “When the trial court fails to do so, ‘the proper remedy is to direct the trial court on remand to determine whether it can make the necessary findings and conclusions based upon…
  • LaFlippe v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw