Rogers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rogers v. State

162 So. 3d 334, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 4369, 2015 WL 1360811

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rogers v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10881 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 27, 2015·No. No. 5D14-1859·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joe Edwin Rogers appeals the summary denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief and his supplemental motion for postconviction relief, both of which were filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, except as to claims 1(a) and 1(d) set forth in Rogers’ initial motion.¹ We conclude that these claims are legally sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record. On remand, the trial court shall either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting these claims or hold an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

PALMER, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur. -

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

PER CURIAM.

Joe Edwin Rogers appeals the summary denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief and his supplemental motion for postconviction relief, both of which were filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, except as to claims 1(a) and 1(d) set forth in Rogers’ initial motion.¹ We conclude that these claims are legally sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record. On remand, the trial court shall either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting these claims or hold an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

PALMER, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur. -

Rogers v. State, 162 So. 3d 334, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 4369, 2015 WL 1360811 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

162 So. 3d 334 (Rogers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.