Martone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martone v. State

864 So. 2d 1231, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 633, 2004 WL 134016

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-494

StatusPublished

This text of 864 So. 2d 1231 (Martone 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

Martone v. State, 864 So. 2d 1231, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 633, 2004 WL 134016 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. We reverse the order with respect to claims one, five, six, seven, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-three and twenty-four, and remand for the attachment of records conclusively refuting these claims or for an evidentiary hearing on these issues. We note that the state’s response was inadequate because it appears that the state addressed the memorandum of law filed by appellant, not the motion for posteonviction relief itself. Had it done so, it would have realized that these claims were legally sufficient and should not have been denied on procedural grounds.

We affirm the order on the remaining issues raised.

STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. We reverse the order with respect to claims one, five, six, seven, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-three and twenty-four, and remand for the attachment of records conclusively refuting these claims or for an evidentiary hearing on these issues. We note that the state’s response was inadequate because it appears that the state addressed the memorandum of law filed by appellant, not the motion for posteonviction relief itself. Had it done so, it would have realized that these claims were legally sufficient and should not have been denied on procedural grounds.

We affirm the order on the remaining issues raised.

STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

864 So. 2d 1231, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 633, 2004 WL 134016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martone-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.