Enmund v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Enmund v. State

832 So. 2d 968, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19233, 2002 WL 31875031

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 27, 2002

DocketNo. 2D02-304

StatusPublished

This text of 832 So. 2d 968 (Enmund 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

Enmund v. State, 832 So. 2d 968, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19233, 2002 WL 31875031 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

Earl Enmund appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On September 30, 1975, Enmund was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed robbery. Although En-mund was originally sentenced to the death penalty, his sentence was later reduced to life in prison with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory. In his motion for postconviction relief, Enmund claims that he has newly discovered evidence. Attached to Enmund’s motion is the witness affidavit of Johnny Foster, which alleges that Foster saw three people running from the murder scene and that Enmund [969]*969was not present. The trial court denied Enmund’s claim, finding that Enmund “abandoned or dismissed his claim of independent evidence regarding Johnny Foster.” However, the trial court failed to attach anything to its order supporting such finding. We note that Enmund’s motion for postconviction relief was filed on October 2, 1998, and pleadings may have been entered in the record which would support the trial court’s finding. However, we do not have such in the record on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Enmund’s postconviction motion and remand with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record refuting Enmund’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

Earl Enmund appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On September 30, 1975, Enmund was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed robbery. Although En-mund was originally sentenced to the death penalty, his sentence was later reduced to life in prison with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory. In his motion for postconviction relief, Enmund claims that he has newly discovered evidence. Attached to Enmund’s motion is the witness affidavit of Johnny Foster, which alleges that Foster saw three people running from the murder scene and that Enmund [969]*969was not present. The trial court denied Enmund’s claim, finding that Enmund “abandoned or dismissed his claim of independent evidence regarding Johnny Foster.” However, the trial court failed to attach anything to its order supporting such finding. We note that Enmund’s motion for postconviction relief was filed on October 2, 1998, and pleadings may have been entered in the record which would support the trial court’s finding. However, we do not have such in the record on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Enmund’s postconviction motion and remand with directions that the trial court either attach portions of the record refuting Enmund’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

832 So. 2d 968, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19233, 2002 WL 31875031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enmund-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.