Charley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Charley v. State

637 So. 2d 388, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5725, 1994 WL 256904

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1805

StatusPublished

This text of 637 So. 2d 388 (Charley 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

Charley v. State, 637 So. 2d 388, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5725, 1994 WL 256904 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief, pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is the second time that the ease has been before us. On the first appeal, we reversed those parts of the order which addressed appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, noting that the trial court had failed to attach any portion of the record to support its conclusions, and remanded with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record sufficient to establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing. Charley v. State, 605 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

On remand, the trial court entered an “Order Supplementing Nunc Pro Tunc Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Post-Conviction Relief’ which merely “supplemented” the order we had previously reversed by attaching nine pages of trial transcript. We conclude that those portions of the trial transcript do not establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we again reverse and remand with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record sufficient to establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief, pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is the second time that the ease has been before us. On the first appeal, we reversed those parts of the order which addressed appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, noting that the trial court had failed to attach any portion of the record to support its conclusions, and remanded with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record sufficient to establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing. Charley v. State, 605 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

On remand, the trial court entered an “Order Supplementing Nunc Pro Tunc Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Post-Conviction Relief’ which merely “supplemented” the order we had previously reversed by attaching nine pages of trial transcript. We conclude that those portions of the trial transcript do not establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we again reverse and remand with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record sufficient to establish conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 388, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5725, 1994 WL 256904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charley-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack