BRADSHAW v. STATE (2019)

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

Louis Lee Bradshaw appeals an order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief that alleged eight separate grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. While the trial court's order summarily denying Bradshaw's motion incorporates the State's response to the motion – which response cited the various portions of the record that purportedly refute each of Bradshaw's claims – no portion of the record below was attached to the subject order.

If a trial court summarily denies a defendant's rule 3.850 postconviction motion based on the records in a case, a copy of that portion of the record conclusively showing that the defendant is not entitled to relief must be appended to the final order. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5). Relatedly, on appeal from a summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record – the contents of which are expressly prescribed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)(A) – conclusively shows that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).

As the State properly and commendably concedes, because the record before us does not conclusively show that Bradshaw is not entitled to relief, we reverse the trial court's order, and remand for further proceedings on Bradshaw's motion. If, on remand, the trial court, rather than conducting an evidentiary hearing on Bradshaw's postconviction motion, again enters an order summarily denying Bradshaw's motion, the court shall attach to its order the record excerpts conclusively showing that Bradshaw is not entitled to any relief as required by rule 3.850(f)(5).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM.