Perry v. State, 872 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Perry v. State, 872 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Woodard v. Chesley (In re Chesley) (flmb, 2016-05-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Woodard v. Chesley (In re Chesley) (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
In re Forfeiture of Cadillac Escalade, 872 So.2d at 1019. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
When denying a motion for post-conviction relief, the court “must provide an explanation of the reasons for the denial and attach any relevant portions of the record to support the denial.” Perry v. State, 872 So.2d 1017, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Orange Rose, LLC
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
The Second District Court of Appeal rejected the title holder’s claim of ownership citing the Green Tree case for the proposition that "the purchaser’s failure to obtain the title certificate at the time of sale does not, however, prevent the passage of title from the seller to the buyer.” Id. at 1019 (emphasis omitted) (citing Green Tree 611 So.2d at 610 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lynda Dianne PERRY
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 2D03-5075.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 28, 2004.
872 So. 2d 1017
Fulmer, Kelly, Whatley.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
WHATLEY, Judge.

Lynda Dianne Perry appeals the summary denial of her motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In her motion, Perry raises three grounds for relief, only one of which is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. The trial court summarily denied Perry’s motion but failed to provide any explanation or record attachments to support the denial. We affirm the trial court’s order as to grounds two and three of Perry’s motion because they are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse as to ground one of Perry’s motion and remand for the trial court to reconsider Perry’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because Perry’s claim appears to be facially sufficient. If the trial court again summarily denies ground one of Perry’s motion, it must provide an explanation of the reasons for the denial and attach any relevant portions of the record to support the denial. See Suleiman v. State, 861 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.