ALEXANDER A. HERNANDEZ
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 postconviction court may not summarily deny a Rule 3.850 motion when the record does not conclusively refute the claims raised.
[1] A postconviction court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion is improper when the record does not conclusively refute the claims raised, requiring remand for an evident…
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 intelligenceAlexander A. Hernandez appealed the postconviction court's summary denial of an eleven-ground motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedu…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed November 4, 2022 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob LeBlanc, Judge. Matthew R. McLain, of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Alexander A. Hernandez appeals the postconviction court’s summary denial of his eleven-ground motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the postconviction court’s summary denial of grounds two, four, five, six, and seven without further comment. We also affirm that portion of ground one relating to trial counsel’s failure to cross examine the victim on her inconsistent statements about who gave her drugs because Hernandez cannot establish prejudice.
We find, however, that the record does not conclusively refute the remaining portion of ground one as well as grounds three and eight. We remand those issues for an evidentiary hearing or for the postconviction court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims. AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED. SASSO, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.