Kenneth N. Hebert v. State

162 So. 3d 64, 2014 WL 3928486, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12420
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 13, 2014·No. 4D12-2965·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for rehearing, we grant the motion in part and withdraw this court’s per curiam affir-mance dated June 12, 2014. The attached opinion is substituted therefor.

Kenneth N. Hebert appeals the denial of his amended Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. He raised two grounds within his amended motion. The trial court summarily denied ground one and scheduled ground two for an evidentiary hearing. That ground included two points; however, only the first was the subject of the evidentiary hearing and the order that followed. As a result, the trial court failed to rule on the second point within that ground. While we affirm the trial court’s disposition of ground one and the point addressed at the evidentiary hearing, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the remaining claim within ground two. See McClendon v. State, 862 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). See also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(C).

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

WARNER, STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

Kenneth N. Hebert v. State, 162 So. 3d 64, 2014 WL 3928486, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12420 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

162 So. 3d 64 (Kenneth N. Hebert v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Winfrey v. State
226 So. 3d 897 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
DONNIE WINFREY v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
Jude B. Lahens v. State
204 So. 3d 982 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)