Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

416 So. 2d 53

Docket No. 82-910.

Cookish v. State

Dennis Richard COOKISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 7, 1982.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1982-07-07

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1987

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by the laws of Florida claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the judgment was entered or that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or Laws of the United States, or of the State of Florida, or that the court was without jurisdiction to enter such judgment or to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or that his plea was given involuntarily, or the judgment or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which entered the judgment or imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence., If the motion and the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the motion shall be denied without a hearing. In those instances when such denial is not predicated upon the legal insufficiency of the motion on its face, a copy of that portion of the files and records which conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the order. 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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 456 So. 2d 531 - State v. Kaufman

Relies on LeDuc v. State · 384 So. 2d 736 - Jones v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-07-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Dennis Richard Cookish, pro se.

¶2No appearance required for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R. Crim.P., and alleged that his plea had been coerced. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and without appending a portion of the record to justify its action. This court, in turn, relinquished jurisdiction and instructed the trial court "to grant an evidentiary hearing or, in the alternative, to supplement the record on appeal by filing a portion of the record which conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." See Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P.

¶5Thereafter, the trial court entered a second order which again denied appellant's motion without an evidentiary hearing and without appending a portion of the record. In deference to the trial court, it appears that the court was under the impression *54 that the record of the plea conference was lodged in this court because of an earlier appeal. In fact, however, the record had been returned to the clerk of the circuit court long before the entry of the trial court's second order. Additionally, in its second order, the trial court suggested "that the Clerk, or the Assistant Attorney General supply the [appellate] court with a copy of the plea dialogue... ." With due respect to the trial court, the foregoing fails to satisfy the requirements of this court's order and constitutes an impermissible delegation of the trial court's responsibility. Thus, we are compelled to reverse.

¶6We recognize that compliance with Rule 3.850 can, at times, be an onerous task for the trial court. Indeed, we acknowledged this point in Jones v. State,384 So.2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), where we said:

The committee note reflects the effect of the rule in creating additional work for the already heavily burdened trial bench. Despite this, we believe observance of the committee's recommendations is advisable and would have the effect of shortening the inevitable appellate proceedings in the long run.

¶7Id., at 738; see also LeDuc v. State,415 So.2d 721 (Fla. 1982). Nonetheless, the rule's requirements are clear; they demand no less than diligent and full compliance.

¶8Since the order on appeal fails to comport with the requirements of Rule 3.850, Fla.R. Crim.P., we are compelled to reverse and mandate the trial court to comply strictly with our order of May 14, 1982. A petition for rehearing will not be entertained.

¶9REVERSED and REMANDED.

¶10LETTS, C.J., and HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

/416/so2d/53 · .json · Public domain