Opinion ID: 1126316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adoption of State's Proposed Order

Text: In his first claim on appeal, Glock contends that the trial court erred by adopting the State's proposed order, by failing to write its own order and by summarily denying relief without reviewing the record to determine whether Glock pled sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing. As to the issue of the adoption of the State's order, this Court has rejected similar challenges where the defendant had notice of the request for proposed orders and an opportunity to submit his or her own proposal and/or objections. See, e.g., Patton v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S749, S750-51, 2000 WL 1424526 (Fla. Sept. 28, 2000); Groover v. State, 640 So.2d 1077, 1078-79 (Fla.1994). In Groover, for example, this Court held that the trial court's adoption of the State's proposed order denying a capital defendant relief on his 3.850 motion did not constitute a due process violation where the trial court signed the State's proposed order three days after defense counsel received a copy and the defendant had an opportunity to argue all of the issues in his brief and at a hearing. 640 So.2d at 1079. The Court explained that even though the defendant did not have the ability to file his own proposed order, his ability to raise objections negated any due process concerns. See id.; see also Hardwick v. Dugger, 648 So.2d 100, 104 (Fla.1994) (holding that verbatim adoption of State's proposed order on a capital defendant's 3.850 motion was not error because both parties stipulated to the filing of post-hearing memoranda, the State served its proposed order on defense counsel months before the trial court signed the State's order, and defense counsel filed an extensive response to the State's proposed order). On the other hand, this Court has found a due process violation to exist when the defendant was not served with a copy of the State's proposed order or given an opportunity to file objections. See Rose v. State, 601 So.2d 1181, 1182 (Fla.1992); see also Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982, 983 (Fla.1993). In contrast to Rose and Huff, in this case Glock's counsel had notice that the trial court asked the State to prepare a proposed order and Glock submitted objections to the State's proposed order. The two cases cited by Glock, Maharaj v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S1097, 2000 WL 1752209 (Fla. Nov. 30, 2000), and Card v. State, 652 So.2d 344 (Fla.1995), are clearly distinguishable, because those cases concerned the State's preparation of a sentencing order. [8] We thus find no error in this case as a result of the trial court's adoption of the State's proposed order summarily denying Glock's successive motion for postconviction relief. Further, we find no merit to Glock's assertion that the trial court failed to conduct a proper review of all the files and records in the case before summarily denying postconviction relief.