LUCIOUS DUNBAR, 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 held that the trial court's summary denial of the appellant's Brady claim was improper because the record attachments did not conclusively refute the claim, preventing meaningful appellate review.
The appellant challenged the summary denial of his postconviction Brady claim. The claim was based on newly discovered evidence and filed after the us…
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 Meaningful Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the order by which the trial court summarily denied his postconviction Brady claim. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Concluding that the appellant alleged a colorable and timely claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and also concluding that the claim is not refuted by attachments to the order, we reverse the order. A motion under rule 3.850 ordinarily must be brought within two years of the date the conviction and sentence become final, but a defendant may present a rule 3.850 claim thereafter, as did the appellant in the present case, if the claim is based upon newly discovered evidence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). The appellant here asserted a facially sufficient Brady claim based upon newly discovered evidence.
Although the trial court concluded that the appellant cannot demonstrate prejudice due to circumstances reflected in the trial court record, the trial court did not attach portions of the trial court record which confirm the existence of these circumstances, and thus, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Thomas v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
The order under review is therefore reversed and this case is remanded for the trial court to either attach portions of the trial court record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing addressing the merits of the claim.
ALLEN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harley v. State, 987 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…by portions of the trial transcript. However, the trial court failed to attach to its order the portions of the record that it [*784] relied on to deny Appellant’s motion. Thus, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review. Dunbar v. State, 916 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Thomas v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We therefore reverse the portion of the order denying claims two through seven and remand for the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s…
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Thomas v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)