Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

571 So. 2d 449

Docket Nos. 73757, 74790.

Hoffman v. State

Barry HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 13, 1990.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1990-12-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including Dieudonne v. State, Dieudonne v. State

“Without reaching the merits of any of these claims, we nevertheless believe that a hearing is required under rule 3.850. In its summary order, the trial court stated no rationale for its rejection of the present motion. It failed to attach to its order the portion or portions of the record conclusively showing that relief is not required and failed to find that the allegations were inadequate or procedurally barred.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 727 So. 2d 236 - LeCroy v. Dugger

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · 561 So. 2d 541 - Provenzano v. Dugger · 562 So. 2d 324 - State v. Kokal

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-12-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 761 So. 2d 1055 - Freeman v. State (2000), 769 So. 2d 974 - Asay v. State (2000)

44 state decisions

210199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*450 Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, Billy H. Nolas, Chief Asst. CCR, and Julie D. Naylor, Asst. CCR, Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3KOGAN, Justice.

¶4Barry Hoffman, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals from a summary denial of relief in the circuit court requested under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and a denial of access to records held by the state attorney. The facts of the crime are stated in Hoffman's prior direct appeal to this Court. Hoffman v. State,474 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

¶5In the case below, Hoffman came forward with allegations based on affidavits and other information clearly establishing colorable claims under rule 3.850. For example, he has alleged that the state withheld the names of other persons who purportedly confessed to the murders of which Hoffman was convicted. At argument, the state conceded that such a claim, if valid, would require relief under Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Hoffman also has alleged claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the failure of counsel to be present when Hoffman testified in the separate trial of his co-conspirator.

¶6Without reaching the merits of any of these claims, we nevertheless believe that a hearing is required under rule 3.850. In its summary order, the trial court stated no rationale for its rejection of the present motion. It failed to attach to its order the portion or portions of the record conclusively showing that relief is not required and failed to find that the allegations were inadequate or procedurally barred.

¶7The state argued that the entire record is attached to the order in the Court file before us, thus fulfilling this requirement. However, such a construction of the rule would render its language meaningless. The record is attached to every case before this Court. Some greater degree of specificity is required. Specifically, unless the trial court's order states a rationale based on the record, the court is required to attach those specific parts of the record that directly refute each claim raised.

¶8We thus have no choice but to reverse the order under review and remand for a full hearing conforming to rule 3.850.

¶9Finally, Hoffman also petitions us to reverse a denial of access to state attorney records he requested under chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1987). At argument the state conceded that this issue was resolved in favor of Hoffman by our recent opinions in State v. Kokal,562 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1990), and Provenzano v. Dugger,561 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1990). Under these opinions, Hoffman clearly is entitled to access these records.

¶10We reverse the court below and remand for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion and with Kokal and Provenzano. On remand, the trial court shall allow Hoffman thirty days to amend his petition, computed from the date the state delivers to Hoffman the records to which he is entitled under chapter 119.

¶11It is so ordered.

¶12SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH, BARKETT and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

/571/so2d/449 · .json · Public domain