Crall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crall v. State

961 So. 2d 1043, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 11002, 2007 WL 2065825

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 2007

DocketNo. 5D06-2945

StatusPublished

This text of 961 So. 2d 1043 (Crall 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

Crall v. State, 961 So. 2d 1043, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 11002, 2007 WL 2065825 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MONACO, J.

Rule 3.850(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, reads that “[i]n those instances when the denial is not predicated on the legal sufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the mov-ant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order. Here, the appellant, George A. Crall, argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying his post-conviction motion without either holding an evidentia-ry hearing or attaching the pertinent parts of the record to the denial. The State agrees. Accordingly, we remand this matter for the trial court either to attach portions of the record supporting its denial of relief on Mr. Crall’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress his confession, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Eastwood v. State, 895 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Edwards v. State, 888 So.2d 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, C.J. and THOMPSON J., concur.

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

MONACO, J.

Rule 3.850(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, reads that “[i]n those instances when the denial is not predicated on the legal sufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the mov-ant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order. Here, the appellant, George A. Crall, argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying his post-conviction motion without either holding an evidentia-ry hearing or attaching the pertinent parts of the record to the denial. The State agrees. Accordingly, we remand this matter for the trial court either to attach portions of the record supporting its denial of relief on Mr. Crall’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress his confession, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Eastwood v. State, 895 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Edwards v. State, 888 So.2d 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, C.J. and THOMPSON J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 So. 2d 1043, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 11002, 2007 WL 2065825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crall-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack