Diaz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Diaz v. State

766 So. 2d 246, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 902, 2000 WL 121806

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-3452

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 766 So. 2d 246 (Diaz 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

Diaz v. State, 766 So. 2d 246, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 902, 2000 WL 121806 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cornelio Diaz appeals the -denial of his post-conviction motion. The order on appeal was entered without an evidentiary hearing, attachment of record excerpts, or any finding that the motion was legally insufficient. The trial court did not order any response from the state before entering its order. In this situation, our review is limited to whether, accepting the allegations in the motion as true, the appellant was entitled to no relief. See Cotton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

We cannot reach that conclusion in this case. As we did in Cotton, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in the trial court. If the trial court again denies the motion, it must either hold an evidentiary hearing first or attach those portions of the record that conclusively disprove Diaz’s claims.

POLEN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Cornelio Diaz appeals the -denial of his post-conviction motion. The order on appeal was entered without an evidentiary hearing, attachment of record excerpts, or any finding that the motion was legally insufficient. The trial court did not order any response from the state before entering its order. In this situation, our review is limited to whether, accepting the allegations in the motion as true, the appellant was entitled to no relief. See Cotton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

We cannot reach that conclusion in this case. As we did in Cotton, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in the trial court. If the trial court again denies the motion, it must either hold an evidentiary hearing first or attach those portions of the record that conclusively disprove Diaz’s claims.

POLEN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 So. 2d 246, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 902, 2000 WL 121806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack