Anderson v. State

787 So. 2d 62, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2078, 2001 WL 193758
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 28, 2001·No. No. 2D00-3652·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John Mark Anderson appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the trial court’s order because the trial court failed to address the issues raised in Anderson’s motion or to attach relevant portions of the record.

[63]*63To support summary denial -without a hearing, a trial court must either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion. See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993); Hoffman v. State, 571 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990). The trial court’s order failed to do either.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for reconsideration. If the trial court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must set forth its rationale and attach any relevant portions of the record that conclusively show relief is not required.

Reversed and remanded.

BLUE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and GREEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anderson v. State, 787 So. 2d 62, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2078, 2001 WL 193758 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

787 So. 2d 62 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ANTONIO D. FOSTER v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
McPherson v. State
787 So. 2d 104 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)