Sutmaier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sutmaier v. State

550 So. 2d 42, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1953, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4647, 1989 WL 95315

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 1989

DocketNo. 89-01988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 550 So. 2d 42 (Sutmaier 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

Sutmaier v. State, 550 So. 2d 42, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1953, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4647, 1989 WL 95315 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nick Sutmaier timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. After finding that the records and files refuted the appellant’s allegations, the trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. However, the judge failed to attach to his order the pertinent portions of the records or files pursuant to rule 3.850(f).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, should the judge again determine' that the appellant is not entitled to relief, he shall attach to his order a copy of the files and records which conclusively show that the appellant is not entitled to relief. The appellant shall have thirty days subsequent to the entry of the new order to again seek appellate review.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Nick Sutmaier timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. After finding that the records and files refuted the appellant’s allegations, the trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. However, the judge failed to attach to his order the pertinent portions of the records or files pursuant to rule 3.850(f).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, should the judge again determine' that the appellant is not entitled to relief, he shall attach to his order a copy of the files and records which conclusively show that the appellant is not entitled to relief. The appellant shall have thirty days subsequent to the entry of the new order to again seek appellate review.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 So. 2d 42, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1953, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4647, 1989 WL 95315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutmaier-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack