ALFRED A. SHERROD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Alfred Sherrod appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded one of his three grounds for relief regarding his sentencing as a habitual felony offender, requiring the trial court to either attach record portions refuting his claims or hold an evidentiary hearing.
The court reversed the denial as to Sherrod's sentencing claim and remanded for further proceedings. The trial court must either attach portions of the record that refute Sherrod's allegations or conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
“We continue to require attachments to orders denying relief in rule 3.850 proceedings.”
Establishes the appellate court's requirement that trial courts must attach relevant record portions when denying postconviction relief motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSherrod sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising three grounds for relief. He claimed his original sentenc…
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 Record Attachments cases and more on FLexlaw
[*120] PER CURIAM.
Alfred A. Sherrod appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief sought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. , Only one of the three grounds Sherrod raises may be meritorious.
Sherrod claims that his original sentence was a guideline sentence, but that he was sentenced as a habitual felony offender upon his violation of probation. The allegation appears facially sufficient; however, neither Sherrod nor the court attaches portions of the record which substantiate or refute the argument.
We continue to require attachments to orders denying relief in rule 3.850 proceedings. See Alexander v. State, 638 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial as it relates to the above-described issue and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies the motion, it must attach those portions of the record that refute Sherrod’s allegations; alternatively, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter. In all other respects the order denying the motion is affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.