Hamilton v. State

866 So. 2d 772, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2274, 2004 WL 350744
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hamilton v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 860 So. 2d 1028
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 26, 2004·No. No. 1D02-5056·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary denial of Appellant’s third claim of ineffectiveness of counsel in his rule 3.850 motion. The trial court failed to attach any portion of the record to refute Appellant’s entitlement to relief and Appellant’s claim of prejudice. See Atwater v. State, 788 So.2d 223, 229 (Fla.2001); see also Smallwood v. State, 809 So.2d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Therefore, we remand and direct the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue or attach portions of the record to refute Appéllant’s allegations. We affirm the denial of Appellant’s remaining claims without discussion.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

Hamilton v. State, 866 So. 2d 772, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2274, 2004 WL 350744 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

866 So. 2d 772 (Hamilton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Atwater v. State
788 So. 2d 223 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Smallwood v. State
809 So. 2d 56 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)