IVORY ARNOLD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record that demonstrate the appellant’s motion was successive, we reverse.
In his motion for postconviction relief, the appellant alleges that the trial court failed to orally pronounce him a habitual felony offender as required by Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.2003). The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s motion finding that it was successive because the appellant had raised this claim in a prior rule 3.800 motion. However, the trial court provided no record attachments to support its finding. Therefore, we reverse the lower court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion and remand to the trial court to address the appellant’s claim on the merits or provide record attachments that demonstrate the successiveness of the appellant’s claim. See Maddox v. State, 870 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BARFIELD, BENTON, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 222 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5) (“If the denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the final order.”); Arnold v. State, 949 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (reversing denial of rule 3.800(a) motion because trial court failed to attach portions of the record that demonstrate the motion was successive). In response to this Court’s Toler1 order, the State properly concedes that we mus…
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Maddox v. State, 870 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)