McCloud v. State

112 So. 3d 739, 2013 WL 1890292, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7365
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McCloud v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1563
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 8, 2013·No. No. 4D12-3596·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the circuit court’s order summarily denying his pro se Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 mo[740]*740tion for post-conviction relief as to his grand theft conviction. The circuit court denied the motion based on its conclusion that the defendant was represented by-counsel at the time he filed his motion. However, as the state acknowledges, the defendant was not represented by counsel at the time he filed his motion. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s order summarily denying the defendant’s motion. We remand for the circuit court to determine whether the defendant’s motion presented any facially valid claims and, if so, to address those claims on the merits.

Reversed and remanded.

MAY, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

McCloud v. State, 112 So. 3d 739, 2013 WL 1890292, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7365 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

112 So. 3d 739 (McCloud v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.