Daniels v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daniels v. State

864 So. 2d 565, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 461, 2004 WL 119231

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-3724

StatusPublished

This text of 864 So. 2d 565 (Daniels 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

Daniels v. State, 864 So. 2d 565, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 461, 2004 WL 119231 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the lower court order that summarily denied his motion for post-conviction relief brought pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court denied Appellant’s motion as successive but failed to attach portions of the record supporting this de[566]*566termination. For that reason, we reverse and remand with instructions that the lower court attach the necessary portions of the record which show that the motion is successive or that the allegations are otherwise refuted. Alternatively, an evi-dentiary hearing should be held to address the merits of the motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the lower court order that summarily denied his motion for post-conviction relief brought pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court denied Appellant’s motion as successive but failed to attach portions of the record supporting this de[566]*566termination. For that reason, we reverse and remand with instructions that the lower court attach the necessary portions of the record which show that the motion is successive or that the allegations are otherwise refuted. Alternatively, an evi-dentiary hearing should be held to address the merits of the motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

864 So. 2d 565, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 461, 2004 WL 119231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.