Summary
reversing and remanding where trial court failed to address claim raised in rule 3.850 motion
Summary of this case from Lively v. StateOpinion
No. 5D15–2052.
02-05-2016
Jermaine PURSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Jermaine D. Purse, Daytona Beach, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock Mcguigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Jermaine D. Purse, Daytona Beach, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock Mcguigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Jermaine Purse appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.850. We find no error in the denial of grounds one through six of his motion. Accordingly, we affirm on these issues without further discussion.
As to grounds seven, eight, and nine of the 3.850 motion, Purse contends that the trial court erred in failing to address those grounds. The State concedes that the trial court's orders dealt only with grounds one through six. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall address the issues contained in grounds seven, eight, and nine. See Gonzalez v. State, 829 So.2d 323, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“We affirm, without comment, the issues addressed in the trial court's order, but we reverse and remand for consideration of an issue that the trial court failed to address.”).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with directions.
LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.