CLEVELAND SINCLAIR v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CLEVELAND SINCLAIR, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, v. CASE NO. 1D06-3450 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed July 12, 2007. An appeal from the Circuit Court of Duval County. Karen K. Cole, Judge. Cleveland Sinclair, pro se, Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Elizabeth F. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The appellant raised three claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his motion. One claim was summarily denied as conclusively refuted by the record and the other two were denied after an evidentiary hearing. Although we affirm the denial of the two claims addressed at the evidentiary hearing, we reverse the summary denial of the other claim because the trial court failed to attach the portions of the record that were referenced as conclusively refuting the claim. See generally, Macon v. State, 751 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). On remand, the trial court is directed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing. Additionally, while the motion was pending, and prior to the expiration of the two-year time limitation set forth in rule 3.850(b), the appellant filed an amended rule 3.850 motion. The trial court declined to address this amended motion and entered an order striking it. As the appellee has conceded, the trial court erred in failing to consider the amended motion. See Ramirez v. State, 854 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999), receded from on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004). Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is also directed to consider this amended motion. AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part. ALLEN, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
