JESUS HERRERA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2012-11-28
No. 3D12-2698
Before WELLS, C.J., and SHEPHERD and LAGOA, JJ.
128 So. 3d 49 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).

Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Bagarotti v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 208 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
    …firmed the referee’s decision. An administrative hearing officer’s findings of fact may not be disturbed by a reviewing court if those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Crespo v. Fla. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 128 So. 3d 49, 52-53 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). We are not free to reweigh the evidence. § 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (2015); Salinas v. E. Aero Marine, 908 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Logically, we explore the record to determine whether competent, substantial evidence…
  • Beach Cmty. Bank v. Arnette, 164 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
    …ment. The Bank’s expansive interpretation of its conflict of interest Policy adds duties not provided for in the rule and is ineffective to establish a violation of the rule by the claimant. See Crespo v. Fla. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 128 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Under the circumstances, the referee’s decision that the claimant was qualified for benefits because she was not discharged for misconduct connected with her work, and the RAAC’s order affirming that determination, were correct…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw