Arnold v. State
This text of 949 So. 2d 1141 (Arnold v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record that demonstrate the appellant’s motion was successive, we reverse.
In his motion for postconviction relief, the appellant alleges that the trial court failed to orally pronounce him a habitual felony offender as required by Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265 (Fla.2003). The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s motion finding that it was successive because the appellant had raised this claim in a prior rule 3.800 motion. However, the trial court provided no record attachments to support its finding. Therefore, we reverse the lower court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion and remand to the trial court to address the appellant’s claim on the merits or provide record attachments that demonstrate the successiveness [1142]*1142of the appellant’s claim. See Maddox v. State, 870 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
949 So. 2d 1141, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2725, 2007 WL 597145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.