Ahedo v. State, 92-02316
| Decision Date | 29 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-02316,92-02316 |
| Citation | 603 So.2d 80 |
| Parties | Joseph Anthony AHEDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 603 So.2d 80, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1840 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph Ahedo appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.
Appellant challenges only his two concurrent three-year minimum mandatories for possessing a firearm in the commission of two armed robberies with a firearm. He alleged in his motion that it was his codefendant who possessed the firearm and therefore he should not have received the minimum mandatories. See Bell v. State, 589 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Watson v. State, 525 So.2d 1034 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). The trial court denied the motion without attaching the plea or sentencing transcript. The judgments and sentences attached to the order do not refute appellant's allegations.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the trial court should again deny the motion, it must attach those portions of the files or records conclusively refuting appellant's allegations. If the records and files do not refute the allegations, it may be necessary for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 93-03533
...sentence" alleging that sentence was illegal because defendant did not carry firearm during commission of offense); Ahedo v. State, 603 So.2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 challenging minimum mandatory terms and alleging that codefendant possessed firearm); Alle......
-
Poiteer v. State, 93-02486
...error. This court has previously determined that it will follow Bell. Anfield v. State, 615 So.2d 853 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); Ahedo v. State, 603 So.2d 80 (Fla.2d DCA 1992). 1 However, the present case suggests the need to explain our position. We hold that the absence of a factual basis during ......