CARLTON TYRONE THOMAS, 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.
Thomas appealed a denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his trial counsel's effectiveness for failing to request an accomplice jury instruction. The appellate court affirmed the denial but remanded for the trial court to make required findings of fact and conclusions of law, as the trial court erred by failing to provide any factual findings after granting an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court erred by failing to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law after granting an evidentiary hearing as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d). The case is remanded to the trial court to make the required findings regarding whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request an accomplice liability jury instruction.
[1] A circuit court errs when it grants an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction relief motion but fails to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the evid…
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d) requires a court to determine issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law when an evidentiary hearing is required.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall ... determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement from Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d) for courts to make findings after evidentiary hearings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas filed a 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an accomplice jury instr…
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 Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the circuit court’s denial of his 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We find merit in appellant’s argument that the circuit court erred when it granted appellant an evidentiary hearing, but failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law respecting the evidence and argument presented at said hearing. We affirm, without comment, as to each of appellant’s other claims on appeal.
In the 3.850 motion, filed below, appellant alleged his trial counsel was ineffec- five for failing to request an accomplice jury instruction. The circuit court granted appellant an evidentiary hearing on this claim. However, the order denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the substance of appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
“If an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall ... determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.” Fla. R.Crim. P. Rule 8.850(d). In the instant case, the trial court erred by failing to make any findings of fact — either orally or in writing. See Dillbeck v. State, 882 So. 2d 969, 972 (Fla.2004); see also Jones v. State, 740 So. 2d 520, 524 (Fla.1999) '(“[T]he trial court’s failure ... to make findings of fact and conclusions of law violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).”). Due to the trial court’s failure, this Court may not reach the merits of appellant’s postconviction claim. Rather, we remand this case to the circuit court to make the needed findings. See, e.g., Kornegay v. State, 826 So. 2d 1081, 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).1
This matter is AFFIRMED in part; and REMANDED in part with directions. On remand, the circuit court is directed to make factual findings and draw legal conclusions regarding appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request an accomplice liability jury instruction.
HAWKES, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. . The record in this case clearly contains competent, substantial evidence upon which the circuit court could have relied in denying appellant’s claim; however, the existence of the previously cited precedent compels us to remand this case to the circuit court so that it may make the required findings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. State, 87 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…27 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Moreover, a fundamental principle of appellate procedure is that an appellate court is not empowered to make findings of fact. See Farneth v. State, 945 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). See also Thomas v. State, 954 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). When the trial court does not make factual findings at the evidentiary hearing or in the written order, “this court cannot independently review the sufficiency of the court’s conclusion under the prejudice prong.” Kornegay v. St…
-
Talton T. McQUITTER v. State, 103 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ore, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In the order entered on remand, the trial court shall set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the rule. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d); Thomas v. State, 954 So. 2d 56, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). This decision should not be taken, one way or the other, as an indication of the court’s view of the merits of the claim. Reversed and remanded with instructions. STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. CONNER, J., dissents w…
-
Shields v. State, 59 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…s added). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law on those claims considered at the evidentiary hearing. Miller v. State, 908 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Thomas v. State, 954 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Affirmed in part, Reversed and Remanded in part with instructions. POLEN, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 740 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1999)
- Dillbeck v. State, 882 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2004)
- Kornegay v. State, 826 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)