EURIELL LAIDLER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
An appellant challenged the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress eyewitness identifications. The trial court denied the motion without attaching records that conclusively refuted the claim as required by procedural rules. The appellate court reversed and remanded due to this procedural defect.
A trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion is insufficient when it fails to attach the required records that conclusively refute the defendant's claims. The court must either attach such conclusive records or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is insufficient if the order fails to attach copies of files and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 arguing that his trial attorney provided ineffective assist…
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 Motion To Suppress Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Martin A. Fitzpatrick, Judge.
February 20, 2018 PER CURIAM. The appellant challenges the denial of his postconviction motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which argued that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress the victims’ out-of-court and in-court identifications. The trial court summarily denied the motion, concluding that the appellant had not shown a deficient performance by counsel or any resulting prejudice. However, the court did not attach to the order records that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4) (“A copy of the portion of the files and records in the case that conclusively shows that the defendant is not entitled to relief as to one or more claims shall be attached to the order summarily denying these claims.”).
In response to this Court’s order, the state concedes that the trial court’s order is insufficient to support the summary denial of the appellant’s motion due to the court’s failure to attach documents. We, therefore, reverse and remand for the attachment of records that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or for an evidentiary hearing. See Ortiz v. State, 968 So. 2d 681, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ROBERTS, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Euriell Laidler, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.