Donald R. Legrande v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Donald R. Legrande v. State

206 So. 3d 146, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18201

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 9, 2016

DocketCase 5D16-1606

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 So. 3d 146 (Donald R. Legrande 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

Donald R. Legrande v. State, 206 So. 3d 146, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18201 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Donald R. LeGrande appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of *147 Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Four, and Five. However, because the record does not conclusively refute LeGrande’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for new trial and' failing to request a limiting jury instruction indicating that the “principals” instruction did not apply to conspiracy, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds Two and Three and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996))). As two of LeGrande’s claims require reversal for attachment of the record or evidentiary hearing, we also remand Ground Six, which alleges cumulative error, for further consideration.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

PALMER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Donald R. LeGrande appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of *147 Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Four, and Five. However, because the record does not conclusively refute LeGrande’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for new trial and' failing to request a limiting jury instruction indicating that the “principals” instruction did not apply to conspiracy, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds Two and Three and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996))). As two of LeGrande’s claims require reversal for attachment of the record or evidentiary hearing, we also remand Ground Six, which alleges cumulative error, for further consideration.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

PALMER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 So. 3d 146, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-r-legrande-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack