Smothers v. State

555 So. 2d 452, 1990 WL 2413
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 18, 1990
Docket89-1926
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 555 So. 2d 452 (Smothers 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
Smothers v. State, 555 So. 2d 452, 1990 WL 2413 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

555 So.2d 452 (1990)

Donald Alton SMOTHERS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 89-1926.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 18, 1990.

Donald Alton Smothers, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

DANIEL, Chief Judge.

The trial court denied defendant's motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record. Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires that unless a motion is legally insufficient on its face, the trial court must attach portions of the files and records conclusively showing that the defendant is not entitled to relief. Although inartfully drawn, defendant's motion clearly alleges that his plea was not knowingly entered with a full understanding of the consequences. This is a proper ground for post-conviction relief. See, e.g., Mikenas v. State, 460 So.2d 359 (Fla. 1984). Since the motion is legally sufficient, the trial court should have attached portions of the record refuting defendant's claim or, alternatively, held an evidentiary hearing regarding such claim.

In its response to the appeal, the state attempted to remedy the trial court's oversight by providing portions of the record below. However, as the court held in Bateson v. State, 516 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), it is inappropriate for the state to designate which records refute defendant's allegations. Accordingly, the order denying defendant's motion for post-conviction relief is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hill v. State
779 So. 2d 624 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Patton v. State
784 So. 2d 380 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Worthington v. State
667 So. 2d 1023 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Oehling v. State
659 So. 2d 1226 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Montgomery v. State
615 So. 2d 226 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Holmes v. State
590 So. 2d 1008 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Smith v. State
582 So. 2d 796 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Debose v. State
580 So. 2d 638 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Griffin v. State
573 So. 2d 979 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Davis v. State
571 So. 2d 118 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Subervi v. Miller
555 So. 2d 452 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
555 So. 2d 452, 1990 WL 2413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smothers-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.