GRADY C. LOVE
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.
When a trial court denies a postconviction motion as successive, it must attach to its order the documents demonstrating the successiveness, or the denial is improper.
[1] An order denying a postconviction motion as successive must be accompanied by copies of documents from the files necessary to support the court's successiveness determina…
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 intelligence“where a trial court denies a motion on account of successiveness, the documents demonstrating successiveness must be attached to the trial court's order”
The court cited Bryant v. State, 944 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) to establish the requirement
Grady C. Love appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion raising a newly discovered evidence claim. The trial court denied the motion on…
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 Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
KHOUZAM, Judge.
Grady C. Love appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. In his motion, Love raised a claim of newly discovered evidence.
The postconviction court denied the motion on the ground that Love's claim was successive. However, the court did not attach to its order any documents—such as
Love's previous motion and the order denying it—to demonstrate the successiveness of
Love's claim. See Fla R. Crim. P. 3.850(h)(2) (providing that an order denying a postconviction motion as successive shall be accompanied by "a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support the court's ruling"); Bryant v. State, 944 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ("[W]here a trial court denies a motion on account of successiveness, the documents demonstrating successiveness must be attached to the trial court's order."). Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for the postconviction court either to attach documents demonstrating the successiveness of Love's claim or to consider Love's motion on its merits.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alphonso Lucas v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Clark v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Bryant v. State, 944 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)