Scarborough v. State

Upon review of the record, we determine that the trial court properly denied the 1994 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellee, however, properly concedes that appellant is entitled to a new hearing on his 1974 motion for post-conviction relief, because appellant was not present at the original hearing, nor was he advised of his right to take an appeal. Clark v. State, 491 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1986); Shevin v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 316 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1975). Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.