Pressey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pressey v. State

19 So. 3d 1092, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14932, 2009 WL 3189367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 2009

Docket4D08-4992

StatusPublished

This text of 19 So. 3d 1092 (Pressey 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

Pressey v. State, 19 So. 3d 1092, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14932, 2009 WL 3189367 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Keith Pressey filed a rule 3.850 motion seeking postconviction relief. The trial judge denied the motion without ordering a response from the state or attaching records to refute the claims. Also, the court did not state any reason for the denial in its order. ‘When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evi-dentiary hearing, it must ‘either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.’ ” Smith v. State, 956 So.2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993)).

The trial court’s order in this case does neither. However, review of Pres-sey’s motion reveals that his allegations are deficient with respect to his claim that counsel was ineffective during the sentencing hearing. See generally Ferrell v. State, 918 So.2d 163, 172 (Fla.2005); Rivera v. State, 1 So.3d 1158 (Fla. '2d DCA 2009). Consequently, the trial court’s summary denial should have been without prejudice to Pressey’s right to file an amended motion. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of Pressey’s claim and remand for the circuit court to grant him leave to amend his motion. Thereafter, the trial court should proceed in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Keith Pressey filed a rule 3.850 motion seeking postconviction relief. The trial judge denied the motion without ordering a response from the state or attaching records to refute the claims. Also, the court did not state any reason for the denial in its order. ‘When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evi-dentiary hearing, it must ‘either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.’ ” Smith v. State, 956 So.2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993)).

The trial court’s order in this case does neither. However, review of Pres-sey’s motion reveals that his allegations are deficient with respect to his claim that counsel was ineffective during the sentencing hearing. See generally Ferrell v. State, 918 So.2d 163, 172 (Fla.2005); Rivera v. State, 1 So.3d 1158 (Fla. '2d DCA 2009). Consequently, the trial court’s summary denial should have been without prejudice to Pressey’s right to file an amended motion. Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of Pressey’s claim and remand for the circuit court to grant him leave to amend his motion. Thereafter, the trial court should proceed in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 So. 3d 1092, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14932, 2009 WL 3189367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pressey-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack