MITCHELL BLANKS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1995-10-27
No. 95-02944
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
662 So. 2d 730 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Mitchell Blanks appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court’s order offers no basis for the denial but merely attaches a copy of the state’s response to the motion. While the state’s response had specific citations to the appellate record to support its conclusion that the issues raised are without merit, those referenced record excerpts are not attached to the order. Accordingly, the order denying the motion must be reversed. On remand, if the court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must attach to its order those portions of the case file and record which demonstrate that Blanks is entitled to no relief; otherwise, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of his claims.

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Berrios v. State, 670 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
    …reply as the reason for its denial of the motion. Further, the attachment to the state’s reply, one page of the plea transcript, is insufficient to support the state’s position that the sentence was the result of a plea bargain. See Blanks v. State, 662 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we must reverse the order denying the motion for postconviction relief. On remand, if the court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must attach to its order those portions of the case file and record…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw