Frank v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frank v. State

697 So. 2d 584, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9011, 1997 WL 446890

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 6, 1997·No. No. 97-1218·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court failed to attach to its order those parts of the record that conclusively refute appellant’s claims for post-conviction relief. In Hastings v. State, 670 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court stated that “[t]he state’s supplementation of the order with portions of the record is insufficient to support the trial court’s summary denial.”

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand this cause for either attachment of portions of the record refuting his claims for relief or for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DELL, FARMER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court failed to attach to its order those parts of the record that conclusively refute appellant’s claims for post-conviction relief. In Hastings v. State, 670 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court stated that “[t]he state’s supplementation of the order with portions of the record is insufficient to support the trial court’s summary denial.”

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand this cause for either attachment of portions of the record refuting his claims for relief or for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DELL, FARMER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Frank v. State, 697 So. 2d 584, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9011, 1997 WL 446890 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

697 So. 2d 584 (Frank v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related