ARCHIE LEE DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1967-12-14
No. 1-197
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur., WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
205 So. 2d 684 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1967) 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 appellate court reversed an order denying a motion to vacate judgment and sentence because no record of the evidentiary hearing was made, preventing appellate review. The case was remanded for a new hearing with a proper record.


Holding

No, an appellate court cannot review a lower court's decision when no record of the evidentiary hearing is available.


Key Quotes

“It now appearing to the Court from correspondence of the Clerk of Circuit Court that no record of the testimony was made, and the appellant being entitled to an appellate review of this hearing and this Court having nothing before it upon which we can base a determination, we have no alternative except to reverse the Order appealed from”

This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision, emphasizing the impossibility of review without a record.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence. An evidentiary hearing was held, but no record of the testimony was made. The motion was…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence under a Rule 1 proceeding. An evidentiary hearing on said motion was ordered by the Circuit Judge and the hearing held in accordance therewith. Testimony was taken at the hearing, but for some reason the attorney representing the appellant at said hearing did not require a record to be made of such testimony, nor an agreed statement of fact as to such testimony made and filed.

The motion was denied and the defendant has appealed. Appellant was granted an extension of time within which to file his brief. No record on appeal was filed and this Court entered its Order on October 23, 1967 directing the Clerk of the Circuit Court to prepare and file with this Court within 30 days from said date a transcript of the testimony taken at the Rule 1 hearing.

It now appearing to the Court from correspondence of the Clerk of Circuit Court that no record of the testimony was made, and the appellant being entitled to an appellate review of this hearing and this Court having nothing before it upon which we can base a determination, we have no alternative except to reverse the Order appealed from and we do therefore, reverse the Order denying the relief prayed for in the Rule 1 proceeding and remand said cause to the trial court to grant the appellant a further evidentiary hearing and at which the testimony shall be reported for *685further use in the event of a further appeal from any order made at this second hearing.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before this court on petition for rehearing, requesting this court to reconsider its opinion filed December 14, 1967, wherein this court reversed the trial court’s order denying the appellant-defendant relief under a Rule One motion.

We have carefully considered the State’s petition for a rehearing and the cases cited therein, and while this court does not recede from its position that the appellant is entitled to a full review of the proceedings had in the trial court on appellant’s Rule One motion, this court does recede from that portion of its opinion filed December 14, 1967, granting the appellant a further evidentiary hearing on his motion, and in lieu thereof, it is the determination of this court, and we so hold that said cause is remanded to the lower court, and-we temporarily relinquish jurisdiction for that purpose, with direction that the Public Defender and the attorney representing the State at said hearing, assisted by the trial court if necessary, compile an agreed statement of fact of the proceedings had on said Rule One motion, including the substance of the testimony of the witnesses, and to report the same to this court within 30 days from the date of publication of this opinion and in default thereof, the original opinion of December 14, 1967, shall automatically be reinstated and compliance therewith ordered.

The Opinion of December 14, 1967 is therefore withdrawn and receded from conditionally, upon a compliance with and in accordance with the foregoing.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Other
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before this court on petition for rehearing, requesting this court to reconsider its opinion filed December 14, 1967, wherein this court reversed the trial court’s order denying the appellant-defendant relief under a Rule One motion.

We have carefully considered the State’s petition for a rehearing and the cases cited therein, and while this court does not recede from its position that the appellant is entitled to a full review of the proceedings had in the trial court on appellant’s Rule One motion, this court does recede from that portion of its opinion filed December 14, 1967, granting the appellant a further evidentiary hearing on his motion, and in lieu thereof, it is the determination of this court, and we so hold that said cause is remanded to the lower court, and-we temporarily relinquish jurisdiction for that purpose, with direction that the Public Defender and the attorney representing the State at said hearing, assisted by the trial court if necessary, compile an agreed statement of fact of the proceedings had on said Rule One motion, including the substance of the testimony of the witnesses, and to report the same to this court within 30 days from the date of publication of this opinion and in default thereof, the original opinion of December 14, 1967, shall automatically be reinstated and compliance therewith ordered.

The Opinion of December 14, 1967 is therefore withdrawn and receded from conditionally, upon a compliance with and in accordance with the foregoing.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Bannerman v. Louie L. Wainwright, 283 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
    …e 6.7, subd. f, Florida Appellate Rules 31 F.S.A., provides that the parties may agree upon a condensed statement in narrative form of all or any part of the testimony.” Thomas v. State, 160 So. 2d 119 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1964). Also see Davis v. State, 205 So. 2d 684 (Fla.App. 1st, 1968); Rushing v. State, 233 So. 2d 137 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1970) and Yancey v. State, 267 So. 2d 836 (Fla.App. 4th, 1972). Accordingly, having found that appellant is entitled to a full review of the proceedings had in the trial court, w…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw