O'Brien v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Brien v. State

117 So. 3d 847, 2013 WL 3335025, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10673

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-3465

StatusPublished

This text of 117 So. 3d 847 (O'Brien 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

O'Brien v. State, 117 So. 3d 847, 2013 WL 3335025, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10673 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand the summary denial of appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion. Burton v. State, 92 So.3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The trial court denied the motion without explanation, indicating it had reviewed “the State’s Response.” As the State concedes in this appeal, no State response was in fact filed below. Appellant pointed out in his motion for rehearing that he had not received an order requiring a State response or any such response from the State. The court denied rehearing without explanation.

The court was required to explain the basis for denial or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim. Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993) (“To support summary denial without a hearing, a trial court must either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.”) The case is reversed and remanded for this purpose.

Reversed and remanded.

MAY, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand the summary denial of appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion. Burton v. State, 92 So.3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The trial court denied the motion without explanation, indicating it had reviewed “the State’s Response.” As the State concedes in this appeal, no State response was in fact filed below. Appellant pointed out in his motion for rehearing that he had not received an order requiring a State response or any such response from the State. The court denied rehearing without explanation.

The court was required to explain the basis for denial or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim. Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993) (“To support summary denial without a hearing, a trial court must either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.”) The case is reversed and remanded for this purpose.

Reversed and remanded.

MAY, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 So. 3d 847, 2013 WL 3335025, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack