Schultheis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schultheis v. State

65 So. 3d 1184, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11574, 2011 WL 3055730

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 2011

Docket1D10-5041

StatusPublished

This text of 65 So. 3d 1184 (Schultheis 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

Schultheis v. State, 65 So. 3d 1184, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11574, 2011 WL 3055730 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Todd Schultheis appeals the order denying his motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The State concedes the case must be reversed because the trial court failed to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law either on the record or in its order denying post-conviction relief. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (“If an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall ... determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”); Thomas v. State, 954 So.2d 56, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“[T]he trial court erred by failing to make any findings of fact — either orally or in writing.”); see also Kornegay v. State, 826 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Todd Schultheis appeals the order denying his motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The State concedes the case must be reversed because the trial court failed to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law either on the record or in its order denying post-conviction relief. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (“If an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall ... determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”); Thomas v. State, 954 So.2d 56, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“[T]he trial court erred by failing to make any findings of fact — either orally or in writing.”); see also Kornegay v. State, 826 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 So. 3d 1184, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11574, 2011 WL 3055730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultheis-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack