CURTIS V. WOODARD, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of postconviction relief motion because trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions refuting appellant's allegations of prosecutorial breach and sentencing disclosure violations.
A trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion must be accompanied by either an evidentiary hearing or record attachments conclusively refuting the allegations.
[1] A trial court summarily denying a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions that conclusively refute the alleg…
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 intelligenceAppellant sought postconviction relief alleging the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by failing to delete a gun reference from the information a…
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 Plea Agreement Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from the summary denial of a motion seeking postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant raised two points in the motion. In Point I, he alleged that the prosecuting attorney violated the conditions of the plea agreement by failing to delete the information’s reference to a gun. In Point II, appellant asserted that the trial court erred in failing to disclose the factual portions of his presentence investigation prior to sentencing. If these allegations are true, appellant might be entitled to relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s assertions.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion as to the allegations and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegations in the motion. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See also Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). To obtain further review in this cause, any aggrieved party must appeal the new ruling of the trial court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. State, 453 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…rder those portions of the record which conclusively show appellant is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the ground alleged in the above portion of the motion. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. See also Lofton v. State, 442 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). To obtain further review, any aggrieved party must appeal the new ruling of the trial court. The trial judge was correct in denying the appellant’s motion as to the other p…
-
Lambert v. State, 446 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…der the relevant portions of the record; otherwise, appellant must be afforded an evidentiary hearing. In either event, to thereafter obtain further review appellant must then appeal the new ruling of the trial court. See generally, Lofton v. State, 442 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. MILLS, J., and McCORD, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Lehman v. State, 538 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…his plea. Although the trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, he failed to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute Lehman’s allegations. See Johnson v. State, 523 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lofton v. State, 442 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Lehman’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that Lehman is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- VAN Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)