Title: Steinhorst v. State
Citation: 498 So. 2d 414
Docket Number: 69659
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 26, 1986

498 So. 2d 414 (1986)
Walter Gale STEINHORST, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 69659.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 26, 1986.
Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative and Mark Evan Olive, Litigation Coordinator, Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, and Stephen D. Alexander of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &amp; Jacobson, New York City, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Kurt L. Barch, Gregory G. Costas and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the summary denial by the circuit court of appellant's motion to vacate, set aside or correct judgments and sentences, filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in denying the motion without examination of the record of appellant's trial. A state prisoner under sentence of death, appellant seeks a stay of his scheduled execution.
Where a motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850 lacks any substantial *415 factual allegations, or where the facts alleged, even if true, would not render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the motion may be summarily denied without examination of the record. But where the motion contains allegations of substantial material facts stating a claim cognizable in post-conviction proceedings, the motion must be evaluated in light of the trial record. Steinhorst's allegations were sufficiently adequate to at least require an examination of the record.
It appears in this case that the circuit court judge did not examine the trial record and did not have the record before him when ruling on appellant's rule 3.850 motion.
Rule 3.850 provides in pertinent part as follows:
We find that in denying appellant's motion without examination of the trial record, the circuit court erred. We therefore grant the application for a stay of execution, vacate the circuit court's order, and remand for further appropriate proceedings under rule 3.850, including the filing of a response by the state attorney as provided for by the rule.
The order appealed is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents.