Holley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holley v. State

67 So. 3d 443, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13354, 2011 WL 3687450

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-3475

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 So. 3d 443 (Holley 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

Holley v. State, 67 So. 3d 443, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13354, 2011 WL 3687450 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief is summarily reversed. It is well-settled that when a trial court summarily denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evi-dentiary hearing, it must “either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.” Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993) (citing Hoffman v. State, 571 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990)). See also Walkes v. State, 9 So.3d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Terry v. State, 970 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Smith v. State, 956 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The trial court’s order in this case did neither. We therefore summarily reverse and remand for the attachment of portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claims, an evidentiary hearing, or a statement of the trial court’s rationale for its decision on the multiple claims for post-conviction relief raised in this 92-page motion, excluding exhibits and other attachments. Of course, the trial court may order a response from the state before ruling on the claims, if necessary.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

MAY, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief is summarily reversed. It is well-settled that when a trial court summarily denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evi-dentiary hearing, it must “either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.” Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993) (citing Hoffman v. State, 571 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990)). See also Walkes v. State, 9 So.3d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Terry v. State, 970 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Smith v. State, 956 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The trial court’s order in this case did neither. We therefore summarily reverse and remand for the attachment of portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claims, an evidentiary hearing, or a statement of the trial court’s rationale for its decision on the multiple claims for post-conviction relief raised in this 92-page motion, excluding exhibits and other attachments. Of course, the trial court may order a response from the state before ruling on the claims, if necessary.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

MAY, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 3d 443, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13354, 2011 WL 3687450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holley-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack