DOUGLAS v. STATE (2020)

Joshua Douglas timely appeals an order denying and dismissing his motions for postconviction relief, which he filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm but write to address one of his arguments on appeal.

Mr. Douglas argues that the postconviction court erred in denying each of the claims in his June 5 and August 30, 2018, motions by repeating the identical analysis for each claim in which the court quoted excerpts from his plea colloquy and concluded that the record conclusively refuted the requisite prejudice for postconviction relief. Mr. Douglas argues that the postconviction court should have separately considered and addressed the allegations under each of his claims and that the record attachments to the court's order do not conclusively refute each of his claims. Our independent review of the record attachments to the postconviction court's order and of the law reflect that each of Mr. Douglas's individual claims are conclusively refuted by the record and/or are without legal merit.¹ Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court's order dismissing and denying Mr. Douglas's motions for postconviction relief without further discussion.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Contrary to Mr. Douglas's assertion in his initial brief that the postconviction court's order was unaccompanied by any attachments, the court attached copies of the information; the plea form; the May 18, 2016, transcript of the plea hearing; the June 15, 2016, transcript of the sentencing hearing; the judgment and sentence; the order of probation; and each of Mr. Douglas's motions for postconviction relief and the attachments thereto.

PER CURIAM.

NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.