Morgan v. State, 63679
| Decision Date | 05 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 63679,63679 |
| Citation | 475 So.2d 681,10 Fla. L. Weekly 494 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 494 Floyd MORGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Weinberg, Michael P. Madow and Dianne S. McGaan of Williams & Connolly, Washington, D.C., and J. Craig Williams of Williams & Stapp, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This case is before the Court on appeal from the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. This Court has jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
At the time of the filing of appellant's motion, rule 3.850 provided in pertinent part as follows:
Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the prosecuting attorney of the court, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that ... there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant him a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
This rule limits the court's initial consideration to the motion and the "files and records of the case." It does not contemplate the consideration of a response by the state nor any resolution of factual matters without an evidentiary hearing. *
In the present case, the court found disputed factual matters not conclusively resolved by "the files and records of the case" and ordered a response by the state. The court then considered the response and denied the motion without a hearing. Such a procedure was not authorized by the rule under the circumstances.
We find that without reference to the state's response the motion, considered with the files and records of the case, does not conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to any relief. We therefore reverse the order of the circuit court and remand with directions that the court hold an evidentiary hearing and thereafter render an appropriate judgment.
It is so ordered.
* The rule as amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. State
...respondent. BARKETT, Judge. We have for review Holland v. State, 484 So.2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which conflicts with Morgan v. State, 475 So.2d 681 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. The opinion of the district court below purports to apply the doctrine of harmles......
-
Morgan v. State, 69104
...without hearing. This Court reversed that order and remanded the case to the trial court to take evidence on the motion. Morgan v. State, 475 So.2d 681 (Fla.1985). On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and then denied the motion. The appellant now appeals the order denying ......
-
Holland v. State, 85-2583
...was denied without an evidentiary hearing. Holland appeals, contending that he was entitled to a hearing under authority of Morgan v. State, 475 So.2d 681 (Fla.1985). Facially, Holland is correct. However our review leaves us convinced that the error was harmless according to applicable cri......