Callins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Callins v. State

657 So. 2d 31, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6583, 1995 WL 360294

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1995

DocketNo. 95-1660

StatusPublished

This text of 657 So. 2d 31 (Callins 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.

Bluebook

Callins v. State, 657 So. 2d 31, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6583, 1995 WL 360294 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief filed [32]*32pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, but failed to attach those portions of the record conclusively showing that he is entitled to no relief. We are unable to ascertain whether appellant is presently incarcerated for the offense from which appellant seeks relief. Additionally, the facts underlying this appeal may entitle appellant to relief under Wall v. State, 525 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and the trial court’s order fails to disclose whether the trial court considered Wall when it determined appellant’s motion to be untimely filed.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or for attachment of those parts of the record showing that appellant is not entitled to relief. See Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief filed [32]*32pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, but failed to attach those portions of the record conclusively showing that he is entitled to no relief. We are unable to ascertain whether appellant is presently incarcerated for the offense from which appellant seeks relief. Additionally, the facts underlying this appeal may entitle appellant to relief under Wall v. State, 525 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and the trial court’s order fails to disclose whether the trial court considered Wall when it determined appellant’s motion to be untimely filed.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or for attachment of those parts of the record showing that appellant is not entitled to relief. See Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 So. 2d 31, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6583, 1995 WL 360294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callins-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack