ROOSEVELT BRADLEY, II
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.
Bradley appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion as successive. The court held that while the postconviction court properly found the motion successive, it violated Rule 3.850(h)(2) by failing to attach the necessary records to its order.
The postconviction court did not comply with Rule 3.850(h)(2). While the court's substantive finding that the motion was successive may have been proper, the failure to attach the required records to the order was error that requires reversal and remand.
[1] A court dismissing a second or successive motion for postconviction relief must attach to its order a copy of the files and records necessary to support the ruling.
[2] A postconviction court's order denying a motion as successive must include supporting records when the motion is dismissed under Rule 3.850(h)(2).
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When a motion is dismissed under this subdivision, a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support the court's ruling shall accompany the order denying the motion.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement that Rule 3.850(h)(2) imposes on courts dismissing successive motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoosevelt Bradley, II filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The postconviction court denied the motion as…
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 Abuse Of Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roosevelt Bradley, II, appeals the postconviction court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. His sole argument on appeal is that the court denied his motion as successive, but, in doing so, failed to comply with the requirements of subdivision (h)(2) of rule 3.850 because no records were attached to the order. Bradley is correct.
Rule 3.850(h)(2) provides:
A second or successive motion is an extraordinary pleading.
Accordingly, a court may dismiss a second or successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the defendant or the attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure or there was no good cause for the failure of the defendant or defendant’s counsel to have asserted those grounds in a prior motion. When a motion is dismissed under this subdivision, a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support the court’s ruling shall accompany the order denying the motion.
In its order, the court found that the sole claim raised by Bradley in his motion was “barred as successive” because it was substantially similar to one unsuccessfully raised by him in a prior motion. However, despite the order stating that certain portions of the court record that support the ruling were attached, no such records were attached.
Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand for the postconviction court to attach to its order a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support its ruling that Bradley’s motion is successive.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
ORFINGER, LAMBERT, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 2