Riley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Riley v. State

591 So. 2d 684, 1992 WL 7206

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 22, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2924

StatusPublished

This text of 591 So. 2d 684 (Riley 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

Riley v. State, 591 So. 2d 684, 1992 WL 7206 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Riley appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The post-conviction relief motion alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to call a witness who would testify that the defendant did not commit the crime with which he was charged. The trial court order summarily denying the rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief failed to include the transcript of the sentencing hearing or other record attachments which conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or for attachment of portions of the record showing the defendant is not entitled to relief. Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

DOWNEY, LETTS and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Riley appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The post-conviction relief motion alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to call a witness who would testify that the defendant did not commit the crime with which he was charged. The trial court order summarily denying the rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief failed to include the transcript of the sentencing hearing or other record attachments which conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or for attachment of portions of the record showing the defendant is not entitled to relief. Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

DOWNEY, LETTS and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 So. 2d 684, 1992 WL 7206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack