RICKEY DON CRONE, 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.
The court reversed and remanded two summarily denied ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the trial court failed to state its rationale or cite the record, while affirming the trial court's handling of other claims.
A trial court must either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach specific record portions to its order when summarily denying ineffective assistance of counsel claims under Rule 3.850.
[1] A trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach specific record portions to its order when summarily denying postconviction ineffective assistance of c…
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 intelligenceCrone appealed the circuit court's denial of his postconviction Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court held an …
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 Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Rickey D. Crone, appeals the circuit court’s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on two of Crone’s claims, but denied the remaining claims without explanation. The State acknowledges that partial reversal is required because the trial court neither stated its rationale nor attached specific parts of the record to support summary denial of the remaining claims, each alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. See Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1993).
We have determined that only two of the summarily denied claims are facially sufficient. See Daniels v. State, 701 So. 2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
The claims upon which further action is required are numbers (8) (failure to object to pictorial evidence) and (9) (failure to object to certain quotations from a dictionary).
No error is shown as to those claims upon which the trial court conducted a hearing.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND the denial of the claims we have identified, with directions that the court either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach to the order those specific portions of the record that conclusively establish Crone is not entitled to relief. See Daniels, 701 So. 2d at 1223. We AFFIRM the remaining issues raised on appeal.
KAHN, BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1993)
- Daniels v. State, 701 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)