Martone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martone v. State

891 So. 2d 1155, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 578, 2005 WL 156753

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2005

DocketNo. 4D03-494

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 891 So. 2d 1155 (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, 891 So. 2d 1155, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 578, 2005 WL 156753 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE •

PER CURIAM.

In February 2004, we reversed a summary denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief as to claims one; five, six, seven, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-three, and twenty-four. We remanded for the attachment of records conclusively refuting these claims or for an evidentiary hearing on the issues. In June 2004, the circuit court issued an order to the statewide prosecutor to respond to the mandate on the motion for postconviction relief. A response was filed by the statewide prosecutor, but the trial court has not ruled on the response, despite, orders from this court requesting a ruling.

As a result of the. failure of the trial court to render an order in accordance with our mandate, .we deem that the record does not support grounds for a summary denial. We therefore enforce our mandate by ordering an evidentiary hearing on the eight issues.

STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE •

PER CURIAM.

In February 2004, we reversed a summary denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief as to claims one; five, six, seven, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-three, and twenty-four. We remanded for the attachment of records conclusively refuting these claims or for an evidentiary hearing on the issues. In June 2004, the circuit court issued an order to the statewide prosecutor to respond to the mandate on the motion for postconviction relief. A response was filed by the statewide prosecutor, but the trial court has not ruled on the response, despite, orders from this court requesting a ruling.

As a result of the. failure of the trial court to render an order in accordance with our mandate, .we deem that the record does not support grounds for a summary denial. We therefore enforce our mandate by ordering an evidentiary hearing on the eight issues.

STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 So. 2d 1155, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 578, 2005 WL 156753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martone-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack