Hoffman v. State, s. 73757
| Decision Date | 13 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 73757,74790,s. 73757 |
| Citation | 571 So.2d 449 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly S649 Barry HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, Billy H. Nolas, Chief Asst. CCR, and Julie D. Naylor, Asst. CCR, Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Barry Hoffman, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals from a summary denial of relief in the circuit court requested under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and a denial of access to records held by the state attorney. The facts of the crime are stated in Hoffman's prior direct appeal to this Court. Hoffman v. State, 474 So.2d 1178 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
In the case below, Hoffman came forward with allegations based on affidavits and other information clearly establishing colorable claims under rule 3.850. For example, he has alleged that the state withheld the names of other persons who purportedly confessed to the murders of which Hoffman was convicted. At argument, the state conceded that such a claim, if valid, would require relief under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Hoffman also has alleged claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the failure of counsel to be present when Hoffman testified in the separate trial of his co-conspirator.
Without reaching the merits of any of these claims, we nevertheless believe that a hearing is required under rule 3.850. In its summary order, the trial court stated no rationale for its rejection of the present motion. It failed to attach to its order the portion or portions of the record conclusively showing that relief is not required and failed to find that the allegations were inadequate or procedurally barred.
The state argued that the entire record is attached to the order in the Court file before us, thus fulfilling this requirement. However, such a construction of the rule would render its language meaningless. The record is attached to every case before this Court. Some greater degree of specificity is required. Specifically, unless the trial court's order states a rationale based on the record, the court is required to attach those specific parts of the record that directly refute each claim raised.
We thus have no choice but to reverse the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. State
...legally insufficient. See, e.g., Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996); Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1993); Hoffman v. State, 571 So.2d 449 (Fla.1990); Holland v. State, 503 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1987); Lemon v. State, 498 So.2d 923 (Fla.1986); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. The defendant......
-
Asay v. State
...an evidentiary hearing on these claims is insufficient because it does not contain attachments of the record, relying on Hoffman v. State, 571 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990). However, this Court's cases decided since Hoffman have made clear that an order denying an evidentiary hearing is suffici......
-
Atwater v. State
...legally insufficient. See, e.g., Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996); Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1993); Hoffman v. State, 571 So.2d 449 (Fla.1990); Holland v. State, 503 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1987); Lemon v. State, 498 So.2d 923 (Fla.1986); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. The defendant......
-
Doorbal v. State
...relief. Doorbal fails to present a single case in which this Court has granted relief under similar circumstances. Cf. Hoffman v. State, 571 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990) (ordering evidentiary hearing on 3.850 motion where the trial court in its summary order stated no rationale for its rejecti......