Garza v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garza v. State

5 So. 3d 792, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2530, 2009 WL 790164

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 2009

Docket5D09-620

StatusPublished

This text of 5 So. 3d 792 (Garza 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

Garza v. State, 5 So. 3d 792, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2530, 2009 WL 790164 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Luis M. Garza appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Garza’s claims were raised in an earlier motion for postconviction relief.

While the trial court is correct that Garza’s motion would be barred as successive if it raised the same claims as those raised in an earlier rule 3.850 motion, it did not attach any portion of the record to its order. Consequently, the record before this Court does not demonstrate that the motion is successive. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court for attachment of those portions of the record conclusively refuting Garza’s claims.

REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Luis M. Garza appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Garza’s claims were raised in an earlier motion for postconviction relief.

While the trial court is correct that Garza’s motion would be barred as successive if it raised the same claims as those raised in an earlier rule 3.850 motion, it did not attach any portion of the record to its order. Consequently, the record before this Court does not demonstrate that the motion is successive. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court for attachment of those portions of the record conclusively refuting Garza’s claims.

REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 So. 3d 792, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2530, 2009 WL 790164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garza-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.