Lambert v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lambert v. State

446 So. 2d 243, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12130

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1984

DocketNo. AW-9

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 446 So. 2d 243 (Lambert 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

Lambert v. State, 446 So. 2d 243, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12130 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We find that the allegations of appellant’s motion are facially sufficient to state a claim for relief, and the trial court erred in failing to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach to its order those portions of the record which refute the pertinent allegations. On remand, should the trial court again summarily deny appellant’s motion it must attach to its order the relevant portions of the record; otherwise, appellant must be afforded an evidentiary hearing. In either event, to thereafter obtain further review appellant must then appeal the new ruling of the trial court. See generally, Lofton v. State, 442 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

MILLS, J., and McCORD, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We find that the allegations of appellant’s motion are facially sufficient to state a claim for relief, and the trial court erred in failing to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach to its order those portions of the record which refute the pertinent allegations. On remand, should the trial court again summarily deny appellant’s motion it must attach to its order the relevant portions of the record; otherwise, appellant must be afforded an evidentiary hearing. In either event, to thereafter obtain further review appellant must then appeal the new ruling of the trial court. See generally, Lofton v. State, 442 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

MILLS, J., and McCORD, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 So. 2d 243, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack