GABE CHARLEY, 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 denial of post-conviction relief motion because trial court failed to attach sufficient record to conclusively establish appellant was not entitled to relief, requiring either adequate record attachment or evidentiary hearing on remand.
A trial court denying a rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion must either attach portions of the record sufficient to conclusively establish the defendant is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion, it must attach sufficient record portions to conclusively establish ineligibility for relief or cond…
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 Charley sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On first appeal, this court reversed because the tri…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief, pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is the second time that the ease has been before us. On the first appeal, we reversed those parts of the order which addressed appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, noting that the trial court had failed to attach any portion of the record to support its conclusions, and remanded with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record sufficient to establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing. Charley v. State, 605 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
On remand, the trial court entered an “Order Supplementing Nunc Pro Tunc Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Post-Conviction Relief’ which merely “supplemented” the order we had previously reversed by attaching nine pages of trial transcript. We conclude that those portions of the trial transcript do not establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we again reverse and remand with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record sufficient to establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. Appellant’s 3.850 motion is facially insufficient. Lambert v. State, 631 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 631 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Gabe Willie Charley v. State, 605 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)