STEPHEN DRAKUS
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.
A postconviction court must make explicit factual findings and conclusions on the record following an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 motion, and failure to do so requires remand for proper completion of the record.
[1] A postconviction court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to appoint postconviction counsel, as there is no absolute right to counsel in postconviction pro…
[2] A postconviction court must make factual findings and conclusions, either orally or in writing, following an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the postconviction court erred by failing to make any factual findings or conclusions either orally or in its written order”
Court's statement of error requiring reversal and remand
Stephen Drakus sought postconviction relief via a Rule 3.850 motion and requested appointed counsel, which was denied. After an evidentiary hearing 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 Right To Counsel In Post-Conviction Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D17-4457 _____________________________
STEPHEN DRAKUS,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Robert M. Foster, Judge.
May 2, 2019 PER CURIAM.
After his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was denied following an evidentiary hearing, the appellant raises three issues on appeal. We reject the appellant’s argument on Issue I and agree with his arguments on Issues II and III.
In Issue I, the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to appoint postconviction counsel. See Simmons v. State, 99 So. 3d 620, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (recognizing there is no absolute right to counsel in postconviction proceedings and the decision to provide counsel rests in the sound discretion of the trial court).
2
Regarding Issues II and III, the State concedes that the postconviction court erred by failing to make any factual findings or conclusions either orally or in its written order. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(A) (requiring such findings following an evidentiary hearing). As such, this case cannot be reviewed on appeal and must be remanded for a proper order. See White v. State, 198 So. 3d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Even though the State argues that the court must have regarded defense counsel’s testimony as more credible, the postconviction court never said as much, and we cannot make such an assumption. See id. While it also appears that the testimony does not support a finding of prejudice, the lack of factual findings precludes this Court from determining the sufficiency of the trial court’s conclusion under the prejudice prong. Marcus v. State, 201 So. 3d 851, 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). The proper remedy is to remand with instructions for the postconviction court to make the necessary findings upon the record to resolve Issues II and III. Id.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROBERTS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Stephen Drakus, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Simmons v. State, 99 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Dane White v. State, 198 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Marcus v. State, 201 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)