Chancey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chancey v. State

94 So. 3d 666, 2012 WL 3235324, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13331

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-1960

StatusPublished

This text of 94 So. 3d 666 (Chancey 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

Chancey v. State, 94 So. 3d 666, 2012 WL 3235324, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13331 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State properly concedes that reversal of the trial court’s summary denial of Chancey’s Rule 3.850 motion is required because of the failure of the trial court to attach the necessary portions of the record to support denial. On remand, the trial court must either attach those portions of the record conclusively refuting Chancey’s claim, or hold an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State properly concedes that reversal of the trial court’s summary denial of Chancey’s Rule 3.850 motion is required because of the failure of the trial court to attach the necessary portions of the record to support denial. On remand, the trial court must either attach those portions of the record conclusively refuting Chancey’s claim, or hold an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 So. 3d 666, 2012 WL 3235324, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chancey-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.