Gray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gray v. State

693 So. 2d 626, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2742, 1997 WL 134339

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1997

DocketNo. 96-04552

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 626 (Gray 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

Gray v. State, 693 So. 2d 626, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2742, 1997 WL 134339 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Johnnie Gray, seeks review of the summary denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief on grounds two, three and four, as the issues could or should have been raised on direct appeal and are therefore procedurally barred and cannot be raised in a postconviction motion. Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1995). We affirm the trial court’s determination that no relief is warranted on ground seven as the claim is facially insufficient. However, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on Gray’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental error in counts one, five, six, eight and nine. The trial court denied the motion without attaching any documentation which would refute these claims.

On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record which conclusively demonstrate Gray is not entitled to relief on these claims. See Becton v. State, 668 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Johnnie Gray, seeks review of the summary denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief on grounds two, three and four, as the issues could or should have been raised on direct appeal and are therefore procedurally barred and cannot be raised in a postconviction motion. Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1995). We affirm the trial court’s determination that no relief is warranted on ground seven as the claim is facially insufficient. However, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on Gray’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental error in counts one, five, six, eight and nine. The trial court denied the motion without attaching any documentation which would refute these claims.

On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record which conclusively demonstrate Gray is not entitled to relief on these claims. See Becton v. State, 668 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 626, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2742, 1997 WL 134339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack