DOUGLAS A. LIVELY, JR.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2019-02-15
No. 18-2114
Adams, Gail A., Evander, C.J., Berger, J., Harris, J.
264 So. 3d 367 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2019)

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.


Holding

A trial court must either provide specific record citations refuting postconviction relief claims or allow amendment to state a facially sufficient claim, and must address all claims raised rather than ignoring them.


Headnotes

[1] When a trial court denies a Rule 3.850 postconviction relief claim by attaching the entire record without articulating specific reasons or identifying record pages that d…

[2] A trial court must address all claims raised in a Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion rather than summarily ignoring grounds presented by the movant.

Previewing 2 of 2 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

Key Quotes

“It was the lower court's burden to do so, or to do so in the future after remand.”

The court's footnote explaining that when a trial court attaches the entire record without articulating reasons for denial or specifying parts directly refuting claims, it must provide such specificity on remand.

Facts & Procedural History

Douglas Lively appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion. The trial court denied thirteen grounds summarily, failed t…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Remanded. Evander

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DOUGLAS A. LIVELY, JR.,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-2114

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 15, 2019

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Gail A. Adams, Judge.

Douglas A. Lively, Jr., Malone, pro se.

Ashley

B.

Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Lively appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Two, Three, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen. However,

2 because Lively should have been given the opportunity to amend Ground Four1 to state a facially sufficient claim, we reverse the summary denial of that claim and remand with instructions that he be given the opportunity to do so. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007); see also McGill v. State, 157 So. 3d 433, 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (noting earlier motions denied as too long, and interpreting Mancino v. State, 10 So. 3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), as drawing distinction between rejections for form and rejections for insufficiency). Additionally, because the trial court failed to consider Grounds Fourteen and Fifteen, we remand for consideration of those claims as well. See Purse v. State, 185 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing and remanding where trial court failed to address claim raised in rule 3.850 motion); Hatcher v. State, 114 So. 3d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Bridges v. State, 81 So. 3d 616, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. EVANDER, C.J., BERGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 We note that the trial court attached virtually the entire trial transcript to its order denying relief. However, in denying Ground Four, the trial court did not make any reference to any page specifically refuting Lively's allegations. It was the lower court’s burden to do so, or to do so in the future after remand. See, e.g., Hoffman v. State, 571 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla. 1990) (reversing denial of postconviction relief because lower court attached entire record without articulating reasons for denial, or specifying parts of record directly refuting raised claims).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw