Fenelon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fenelon v. State

890 So. 2d 567, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 240, 2005 WL 94853

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fenelon v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 932 So. 2d 431 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 19, 2005·No. No. 3D04-1808·Published

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order summarily denying defendant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. As the state properly concedes, the defendant’s motion states cognizable claims and is legally sufficient. On remand, the court shall attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claims, or hold an evidentiary hearing on the allegations in the motion. Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253 (Fla.1999)(summary denial of 3.850 claims will not be affirmed unless claims are facially invalid or refut-ted by the record); Lasprilla v. State, 857 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(same).

Reversed and remanded.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order summarily denying defendant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. As the state properly concedes, the defendant’s motion states cognizable claims and is legally sufficient. On remand, the court shall attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claims, or hold an evidentiary hearing on the allegations in the motion. Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253 (Fla.1999)(summary denial of 3.850 claims will not be affirmed unless claims are facially invalid or refut-ted by the record); Lasprilla v. State, 857 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(same).

Reversed and remanded.

Fenelon v. State, 890 So. 2d 567, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 240, 2005 WL 94853 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

890 So. 2d 567 (Fenelon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related