Haney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haney v. State

10 So. 3d 1180, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7299, 2009 WL 1606428

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 2009

Docket4D08-4596

StatusPublished

This text of 10 So. 3d 1180 (Haney 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

Haney v. State, 10 So. 3d 1180, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7299, 2009 WL 1606428 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Elbert Haney seeks review of an order that denied his rule 3.850 motion, following *1181 this court’s remand. See Haney v. State, 987 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In that case we concluded that Haney’s motion was not successive, and that any reference by this court to treatment of a prior case as a rule 3.850 appeal was inadvertent. See id. at 234. The case was remanded for further review of the motion.

Following remand, the claims were not considered. Rather, challenges to the timeliness of the motion were made, with related arguments that the claims were not based on newly discovered evidence.

As the motion was timely filed, we remand once again. On remand, the sufficiency of the motion and its specific claims are to be reviewed in light of the standard for determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required in a post-conviction proceeding. The trial court is to examine each claim to determine if it is legally sufficient, and, if so, determine whether it is refuted by the record. See, e.g., Williamson v. State, 994 So.2d 1000, 1006 (Fla.2008) (citing Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000)).

Reversed and remanded.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Elbert Haney seeks review of an order that denied his rule 3.850 motion, following *1181 this court’s remand. See Haney v. State, 987 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In that case we concluded that Haney’s motion was not successive, and that any reference by this court to treatment of a prior case as a rule 3.850 appeal was inadvertent. See id. at 234. The case was remanded for further review of the motion.

Following remand, the claims were not considered. Rather, challenges to the timeliness of the motion were made, with related arguments that the claims were not based on newly discovered evidence.

As the motion was timely filed, we remand once again. On remand, the sufficiency of the motion and its specific claims are to be reviewed in light of the standard for determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required in a post-conviction proceeding. The trial court is to examine each claim to determine if it is legally sufficient, and, if so, determine whether it is refuted by the record. See, e.g., Williamson v. State, 994 So.2d 1000, 1006 (Fla.2008) (citing Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000)).

Reversed and remanded.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 So. 3d 1180, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7299, 2009 WL 1606428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haney-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack