DUGAN v. STATE (2024)

Appellant, Todd Eric Dugan, appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion. In Ground One, Appellant included four separate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which allegedly prejudiced him, as his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.¹ We acknowledge that Appellant's motion was hardly the model of clarity or organization. We affirm as to the denial of the substance of claims 2 and 3 without further discussion. However, because the postconviction court failed to address the allegations set forth in claims 1 and 4, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider those two claims and to issue an appropriate order. See Padro-Guerrero v. State, 123 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

On remand, the postconviction court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing on those two claims or attach the records that conclusively refute the claims. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f).

Affirmed, in part; Reversed, in part; Remanded, with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellant's direct appeal to this Court of his underlying conviction for home invasion with a firearm, and two counts of false imprisonment was per curiam affirmed without opinion. Dugan v. State, 861 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). His direct appeal to this Court from the subsequent violation of probation judgment and sentence was per curiam affirmed without opinion. Dugan v. State, 376 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).

Per Curiam.

Edwards, C.J., and Eisnaugle and Soud, JJ., concur.