necessity of an evidentiary hearing in Florida

2016See Ciambrone v. State, 128 So.3d 227, 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[T]he post-conviction court could not rely on the transcript of Joseph Ciambrone’s trial to summarily deny relief [in Heather Ciambrone’s case].”); Cintron v. State, 504 So.2d 795, 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that the phrase “files and records” as used in rule 3.850 excludes matters outside the official court record); see also Maddry v. State, 649 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s cla

2013See Maddry v. State, 649 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, or to obviate the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.”); Havis v. State, 555 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“The phrase ‘files and records’ does not include factual affidavits presented to the court after the motion has been filed.

2016See Ciambrone v. State, 128 So.3d 227, 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[T]he post-conviction court could not rely on the transcript of Joseph Ciambrone’s trial to summarily deny relief [in Heather Ciambrone’s case].”); Cintron v. State, 504 So.2d 795, 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that the phrase “files and records” as used in rule 3.850 excludes matters outside the official court record); see also Maddry v. State, 649 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s cla

2013See Maddry v. State, 649 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, or to obviate the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.”); Havis v. State, 555 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“The phrase ‘files and records’ does not include factual affidavits presented to the court after the motion has been filed.

2020Coop., Inc., 215 So. 3d 123, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “‘Reasonable attorney’s fees’ generally are not liquidated damages and require a hearing.

2017Conversely, to be liquidated, the damages alleged in the complaint must be certain without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing and “the proper amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law.” Bodygear Activewear, Inc. v. Counter Intelligence Servs., 946 So.2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Pierce v. Anglin, 721 So.2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)).

2017Imaging Servs., Inc., 870 So.2d 111, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (noting that “enjoined parties filed a motion to dissolve, [or modify] the injunction” after entry of the trial court’s order and argued the trial court erred “in setting the bond amount without a hearing”); Lotenfoe v. Pahk, 747 So.2d 422, 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“At the end of the injunction hearing ..., [appellant] advised the court of the necessity of an evidentiary hearing on the bond.”).

2017Imaging Servs., Inc., 870 So.2d 111, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (noting that “enjoined parties filed a motion to dissolve, [or modify] the injunction” after entry of the trial court’s order and argued the trial court erred “in setting the bond amount without a hearing”); Lotenfoe v. Pahk, 747 So.2d 422, 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“At the end of the injunction hearing ..., [appellant] advised the court of the necessity of an evidentiary hearing on the bond.”).

2017Conversely, to be liquidated, the damages alleged in the complaint must be certain without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing and “the proper amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded, i.e., from a pleaded agreement between the parties, by an arithmetical calculation or by application of definite rules of law.” Bodygear Activewear, Inc. v. Counter Intelligence Servs., 946 So.2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Pierce v. Anglin, 721 So.2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)).

2016See Ciambrone v. State, 128 So.3d 227, 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[T]he post-conviction court could not rely on the transcript of Joseph Ciambrone’s trial to summarily deny relief [in Heather Ciambrone’s case].”); Cintron v. State, 504 So.2d 795, 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that the phrase “files and records” as used in rule 3.850 excludes matters outside the official court record); see also Maddry v. State, 649 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s cla

2016See Ciambrone v. State, 128 So.3d 227, 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[T]he post-conviction court could not rely on the transcript of Joseph Ciambrone’s trial to summarily deny relief [in Heather Ciambrone’s case].”); Cintron v. State, 504 So.2d 795, 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that the phrase “files and records” as used in rule 3.850 excludes matters outside the official court record); see also Maddry v. State, 649 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s cla

2011See Renaud v. State, 926 So.2d 1241 (Fla.2006).

2001See Mordenti v. State, 711 So.2d 30, 32 (Fla.1998) ("The purpose of what has now come to be known as a `Huff hearing' is to allow the trial judge to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required and to hear legal argument relating to the motion."). [8] Stark could only confirm that at least the two most recent letters, those dated January 20 and October 31, 1998, would not have been in the open file because they were created after Ventura's trial. [9] McDonald admitted to the convictions on direct examination by the State, but defense counsel explored the convictions in greater detail d

2000See Hopping v. State, 708 So.2d 263 (Fla.1998).

1998See id.

1982See, e.g., Ables v. State, 404 So.2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Clements v. State, 340 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

1980Generally this evidence should be received in the form of documentary proof without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing ..." (e.s.) [3] Wiggins v. State, 191 So.2d 30, 34 (Ala. 1966). [4] Crane v. Hayes, 253 So.2d 435, 442 (Fla. 1971). [5] Florida Statutes, § 79.01, is, in pertinent part, as follows: "Whenever any person detained in custody ... applies ... to any circuit judge for a writ of habeas corpus and shows by affidavit or evidence probable cause to believe that he is detained without lawful authority, the court ... to whom such application is made shall grant the writ forthwith, ag

1980Generally this evidence should be received in the form of documentary proof without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing ..." (e.s.) [3] Wiggins v. State, 191 So.2d 30, 34 (Ala. 1966). [4] Crane v. Hayes, 253 So.2d 435, 442 (Fla. 1971). [5] Florida Statutes, § 79.01, is, in pertinent part, as follows: "Whenever any person detained in custody ... applies ... to any circuit judge for a writ of habeas corpus and shows by affidavit or evidence probable cause to believe that he is detained without lawful authority, the court ... to whom such application is made shall grant the writ forthwith, ag