Holmes v. State

870 So. 2d 919, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5470, 2004 WL 840172
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Holmes v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 842 So. 2d 187
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 21, 2004·No. No. 3D03-504·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Casey Holmes appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the court’s denial of the motion on [920]*920claim 2. However, we reverse the denial on the remaining claims raised by defendant and remand for further proceedings. The state correctly concedes that these claims are facially sufficient and that the court did not attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claims. On remand, the court may summarily deny these claims if they are conclusively refuted by the record, and attach those portions of the record to its order, or grant defendant an evidentiary hearing. Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253 (Fla.1999); Padilla v. State, 861 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Lasprilla v. State, 857 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Holmes v. State, 870 So. 2d 919, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5470, 2004 WL 840172 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

870 So. 2d 919 (Holmes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Padilla v. State
861 So. 2d 1278 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Peede v. State
748 So. 2d 253 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Lasprilla v. State
857 So. 2d 1011 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)