CLEVELAND SINCLAIR, 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 erred in summarily denying one claim without attaching the record and in striking an amended motion.
Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising three claims. Two claims were denied after a hearing, but one was summarily denied without…
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 Conclusively Refuted By The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The appellant raised three claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his motion. One claim was summarily denied as conclusively refuted by the record and the other two were denied after an evidentiary hearing. Although we affirm the denial of the two claims addressed at the evidentiary hearing, we reverse the summary denial of the other claim because the trial court failed to attach the portions of the record that were referenced as conclusively refuting the claim. See generally, Macon v. State, 751 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). On remand, the trial court is directed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Additionally, while the motion was pending, and prior to the expiration of the two-year time limitation set forth in rule 3.850(b), the appellant filed an amended rule 3.850 motion. The trial court declined to address this amended motion and entered an order striking it. As the appellee has conceded, the trial court erred in failing to consider the amended motion. See Ramirez v. State, 854 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1999), receded from on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2004). Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is also directed to consider this amended motion.
AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 248 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Johnson v. State, 111 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…2008). As to Issue III, the lower court abused its discretion by failing to address defendant’s amended 3.850 motion, which defendant had filed within the two-year time limit. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 759 (Fla.2007); Sinclair v. State, 959 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Appellant did not appeal the lower court’s denial of grounds 1, 3, and 6. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED. PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)
- Ramirez v. State, 854 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Madden v. State, 751 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- MacOn v. State, 751 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)