STRIANESE v. State, 2D03-1907.
| Decision Date | 04 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-1907.,2D03-1907. |
| Citation | 880 So.2d 759 |
| Parties | Louis James STRIANESE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Fraim Hogge, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Louis Strianese challenges an order entered after an evidentiary hearing that denied his motion for postconviction relief, which alleged multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily denied one of Strianese's claims but held an evidentiary hearing on the remaining claims. Because the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the claims heard at the evidentiary hearing before it denied Strianese's motion, we reverse the order. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (); see also Bunger v. State, 779 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Kornegay v. State, 826 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
We have considered the other arguments raised by Strianese and find them to be without merit. We affirm without discussion the trial court's summary denial of Strianese's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for new trial on the basis that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. On remand, the trial court shall enter an order making findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its determination that Strianese was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
STRIANESE v. Sec'y, Case No. 2:08-cv-159-FtM-36DNF
...court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remandedthe post-conviction court's May 20, 2003 order. Exh. 10; Strianese v. State, 880 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In particular, the appellate court found:Louis Strianese challenges an order entered after an evidentiary hearing that denied ......
- BRYAN-LILLY v. Lilly, 2D03-105.
-
Mitchell v. State, 2D13–5871.
...fact and conclusions of law as to the issues raised at the evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(A) ; Strianese v. State, 880 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; Hunter v. State, 87 So.3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).Reversed and remanded with directions.ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ., ...