Don Crone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Don Crone v. State

835 So. 2d 342, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 280, 2003 WL 131632

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-221

StatusPublished

This text of 835 So. 2d 342 (Don Crone 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

Don Crone v. State, 835 So. 2d 342, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 280, 2003 WL 131632 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Rickey D. Crone, appeals the circuit court’s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on two of Crone’s claims, but denied the remaining claims without explanation. The State acknowledges that partial reversal is required because the trial court neither stated its rationale nor attached specific parts of the record to support summary denial of the remaining claims, each alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1993). We have determined that only two of the summarily denied claims are facially sufficient. See Daniels v. State, 701 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The claims upon which further action is required are numbers (8) (failure to object to pictorial evidence) and (9) (failure to object to certain quotations from a dictionary). No error is shown as to those claims upon which the trial court conducted a hearing. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND the denial of the claims we have identified, with directions that the court either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach to the order those specific portions of the record that conclusively establish Crone is not entitled to relief. See Daniels, 701 So.2d at 1223. We AFFIRM the remaining issues raised on appeal.

KAHN, BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Rickey D. Crone, appeals the circuit court’s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on two of Crone’s claims, but denied the remaining claims without explanation. The State acknowledges that partial reversal is required because the trial court neither stated its rationale nor attached specific parts of the record to support summary denial of the remaining claims, each alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. See Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1993). We have determined that only two of the summarily denied claims are facially sufficient. See Daniels v. State, 701 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The claims upon which further action is required are numbers (8) (failure to object to pictorial evidence) and (9) (failure to object to certain quotations from a dictionary). No error is shown as to those claims upon which the trial court conducted a hearing. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND the denial of the claims we have identified, with directions that the court either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach to the order those specific portions of the record that conclusively establish Crone is not entitled to relief. See Daniels, 701 So.2d at 1223. We AFFIRM the remaining issues raised on appeal.

KAHN, BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 342, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 280, 2003 WL 131632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/don-crone-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack