Puente v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Puente v. State

113 So. 3d 89, 2013 WL 1776877, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6702

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 2013

DocketNo. 2D12-2818

StatusPublished

This text of 113 So. 3d 89 (Puente 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

Puente v. State, 113 So. 3d 89, 2013 WL 1776877, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6702 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

Antonio Puente appeals the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse on grounds one through three, eight, and nine and remand for further proceedings. We affirm on grounds five through seven without further comment.

Puente was found guilty by a jury of aggravated battery with a firearm, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, he filed a rule 3.850 motion raising ten grounds.

The postconviction court found that the record refuted grounds one through three, eight, and nine, but it failed to attach the relevant portions of the record to its order. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (“In those instances when the denial is not predicated on the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order.”). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order with regard to grounds one through three, eight, and nine and remand for the post-conviction court to attach the portions of the record that conclusively refute these grounds or hold an evidentiary hearing. See id.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

Antonio Puente appeals the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse on grounds one through three, eight, and nine and remand for further proceedings. We affirm on grounds five through seven without further comment.

Puente was found guilty by a jury of aggravated battery with a firearm, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, he filed a rule 3.850 motion raising ten grounds.

The postconviction court found that the record refuted grounds one through three, eight, and nine, but it failed to attach the relevant portions of the record to its order. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (“In those instances when the denial is not predicated on the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order.”). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order with regard to grounds one through three, eight, and nine and remand for the post-conviction court to attach the portions of the record that conclusively refute these grounds or hold an evidentiary hearing. See id.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 3d 89, 2013 WL 1776877, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puente-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.