State v. HUBY

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. HUBY

58 So. 3d 343, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4351, 2011 WL 1135321

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 2011

Docket4D10-3817

StatusPublished

This text of 58 So. 3d 343 (State v. HUBY) 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

State v. HUBY, 58 So. 3d 343, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4351, 2011 WL 1135321 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order granting ap-pellee Luis Ruby’s amended motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Without holding an evidentiary hearing on the amended motion, or giving notice and an opportunity to the State to respond to it, the trial court granted the motion, vacating Ruby’s open pleas and sentences for violation of probation. As we said in State v. Schiano, 696 So.2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), rule 3.850(d) does not authorize the trial court to summarily grant a motion for post conviction relief. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on this amended motion, to which the State should be permitted to respond, and for the trial court to allow an evidentiary hearing on the claims raised by appellee.

Reversed and Remanded.

GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order granting ap-pellee Luis Ruby’s amended motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Without holding an evidentiary hearing on the amended motion, or giving notice and an opportunity to the State to respond to it, the trial court granted the motion, vacating Ruby’s open pleas and sentences for violation of probation. As we said in State v. Schiano, 696 So.2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), rule 3.850(d) does not authorize the trial court to summarily grant a motion for post conviction relief. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on this amended motion, to which the State should be permitted to respond, and for the trial court to allow an evidentiary hearing on the claims raised by appellee.

Reversed and Remanded.

GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 So. 3d 343, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4351, 2011 WL 1135321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-huby-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack