Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 25, 1984; Florida; State Appellate Court
Oliver Thames appeals the trial court's summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to seek severance of two charges: armed robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Thames argues that the admission of evidence regarding his prior felony convictions was prejudicial to the armed robbery charge, despite being relevant to the firearm possession charge. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.152, a defendant has a right to sever charges not based on the same acts if it promotes a fair determination of guilt or innocence. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that severance is warranted when one count involves evidence inadmissible for the other. The appellate court concludes that Thames's motion is not legally insufficient and reverses the trial court’s decision, remanding for further proceedings. On remand, the court must either attach supporting record portions if it finds no relief is warranted or hold an evidentiary hearing if the record does not conclusively show entitlement to no relief. The state of Florida's motion for rehearing claims the appellant's motion is legally insufficient, asserting unfairness in the appellate decision made without their response, but acknowledges the court's discretion under rule 9.140(g) regarding responses to 3.850 appeals. The appellate court's ruling is reversed and remanded for further determination according to established legal criteria.
The rule allows the state to file briefs in 3.850 appeals without needing court approval, but it does not require them to do so. The court expresses that it should not act as a screening board for all appeals and acknowledges that it was ill-advised not to request a response from the state in this case. The state's motion for rehearing argues that the appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was based solely on trial counsel's failure to move for severance of a count charging possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which is legally insufficient because, at the time of trial, there was no absolute right to severance. The state references prior case law, noting that the decision in State v. Vazquez, which recognized the importance of severance, was issued after the appellant's trial. Despite this, the court recognizes a split in authority on the issue of severance at the time of the trial, suggesting that the appellant's motion is not facially insufficient to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. The court acknowledges the state's argument about the deference owed to counsel's performance but asserts that this argument should be made at the trial court level. Since the summary denial of the 3.850 motion did not include any part of the record, the court finds that the motion alleges sufficient facts to suggest a possible deprivation of the appellant's rights, leading to a reversal and remand for further proceedings.
The criminal procedure outlined emphasizes the straightforward process for handling motions. Initially, the trial court assesses the motion's sufficiency; if deemed insufficient, it is denied. If sufficient, the court reviews the existing record to see if it conclusively shows that the prisoner is not entitled to relief. If so, the motion is denied with relevant record portions attached. If not, an evidentiary hearing is required. An appeal of a summary denial is processed under rule 9.140(g), which allows for a less stringent review. The strong language in the rules necessitates that the court must not deny relief without a hearing if the motion presents a valid claim. In this case, the motion presents a colorable claim, but it does not imply that the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel or is entitled to a new trial. The matter is remanded for further examination, including a potential evidentiary hearing and consideration of the Vazquez decision. The state's request to supplement the record on appeal was noted, but it was determined that there is no established practice for such requests under rule 9.140(g) when the trial court's order does not refer to the record. Rule 3.850 mandates that the trial court must attach supporting record portions when denying a motion without a hearing. The appellate court's review is limited to the face of the pleading in such cases. The motions for rehearing and to supplement the record on appeal have been denied.
The court has REMANDED the case to the trial court for further proceedings, with Judges Smith, Joanos, and Zehmer concurring. Under Rule 9.140(g) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, an appeal from a summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 must follow specific procedures. The lower tribunal's clerk is required to promptly send conformed copies of relevant documents to the court, and no briefs or oral arguments are necessary. If the record does not conclusively demonstrate that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order will be reversed, and an evidentiary hearing will be mandated. The court may also seek a response from the State prior to making a decision. Additionally, the case will require a second conference for proper evaluation, as many appeals under Rule 3.850 face delays due to noncompliance with these procedural requirements. The precedents cited, including Panzavecchia v. State and Dedmon v. State, are noted to be limited in their applicability based on their specific facts and timelines.
