Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. State

133 So. 3d 536, 2014 WL 30682, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 102

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 3, 2014

DocketNo. 1D12-4651

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 3d 536 (Wright 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

Wright v. State, 133 So. 3d 536, 2014 WL 30682, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 102 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

MacArthur Wright, appellant, seeks review of the order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We find no error with the court’s denial, following an evi-dentiary hearing, of ground two of Wright’s motion. We also affirm without further discussion the lower tribunal’s summary denial of ground three, sub-parts one and two, and grounds four, five, and six of Wright’s motion.¹ However, as the State has candidly acknowledged in its answer brief, in regards to ground three, sub-parts three, four, and five, the post-conviction court cited portions of the record in support of its denial of relief on those claims, yet neglected to attach all of the record citations to its order.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND to allow the court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Wright’s claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

MacArthur Wright, appellant, seeks review of the order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We find no error with the court’s denial, following an evi-dentiary hearing, of ground two of Wright’s motion. We also affirm without further discussion the lower tribunal’s summary denial of ground three, sub-parts one and two, and grounds four, five, and six of Wright’s motion.¹ However, as the State has candidly acknowledged in its answer brief, in regards to ground three, sub-parts three, four, and five, the post-conviction court cited portions of the record in support of its denial of relief on those claims, yet neglected to attach all of the record citations to its order.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND to allow the court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Wright’s claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 3d 536, 2014 WL 30682, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.