Valle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valle v. State

20 So. 3d 979, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15809, 2009 WL 3364929

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 2009

Docket3D08-3020

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 So. 3d 979 (Valle 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

Valle v. State, 20 So. 3d 979, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15809, 2009 WL 3364929 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a combined motion under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.800(a). We affirm with regard to the first claim but, as conceded by the State, with leave for defendant-appellant Valle to file an amended motion if he has a good faith basis to do so. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). The defendant shall file the amended motion, if any, within sixty days after the issuance of this court’s mandate.

With regard to the second claim, the State concedes that the present postcon-viction record does not conclusively refute the claim. While the State contended in its trial court response that the defendant pled guilty to the offense of kidnapping, not armed kidnapping, neither the State’s trial court response nor the court’s order attached the judgment. Because the post-conviction record now before does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D), we remand for further consideration of the second claim. If the trial court again summarily denies the claim, it shall attach to the denial order the documents which conclusively refute the defendant’s claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a combined motion under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.800(a). We affirm with regard to the first claim but, as conceded by the State, with leave for defendant-appellant Valle to file an amended motion if he has a good faith basis to do so. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). The defendant shall file the amended motion, if any, within sixty days after the issuance of this court’s mandate.

With regard to the second claim, the State concedes that the present postcon-viction record does not conclusively refute the claim. While the State contended in its trial court response that the defendant pled guilty to the offense of kidnapping, not armed kidnapping, neither the State’s trial court response nor the court’s order attached the judgment. Because the post-conviction record now before does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D), we remand for further consideration of the second claim. If the trial court again summarily denies the claim, it shall attach to the denial order the documents which conclusively refute the defendant’s claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 So. 3d 979, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15809, 2009 WL 3364929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valle-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack