Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2001

Osborne v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided October 17, 2001 · Allen, Benton, Booth

798 So. 2d 39; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14658; 2001 WL 1230832 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Kuiken v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order which summarily denied his rule 3.850 motion as successive. We conclude that the court erred in this ruling because Appellant’s prior postconviction motion was properly filed as a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Ingledue v. State, 734 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Moreover, we conclude that Appellant’s claims regarding trial counsel’s failure to *40communicate with him and failure to investigate and call witnesses are facially sufficient. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach record excerpts which conclusively refute Appellant’s claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the summary denial of the remaining claims.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ALLEN, C.J., BOOTH and BENTON, JJ„ CONCUR.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.