NORMAN GENE COLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Norman Collins sought post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to call a codefendant who would have testified favorably and because his counsel also represented the codefendant. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary denial and remanded for proper consideration of the claims.
The trial court erred in summarily denying Collins's motion for post-conviction relief without either conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions that conclusively refuted the allegations. The case is reversed and remanded for the trial court to either hold an evidentiary hearing or provide a summary denial with conclusive record documentation.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's allegations to summarily deny a motion for post-…
[2] Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to call a witness who would provide exculpatory testimony may entitle a defendant to post-conv…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If the allegations are true, appellant might be entitled to post-conviction relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach a portion of the record which conclusively refute appellant's allegations.”
Establishes that the trial court's summary denial was improper without either a hearing or conclusive record evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCollins was convicted of a crime. At trial, his codefendant advised the court that he had a different accomplice and that Collins had no involvement i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s singular point in his motion alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel through his attorney’s failure to call appellant’s codefendant who would have presented testimony favorable to appellant. Appellant’s codefendant at trial advised the court that he had a different accomplice and appellant had no involvement in the crime. Furthermore, appellant contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel also represented his codefendant at trial. If the allegations are true, appellant might be entitled to post-conviction relief. The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach a portion of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s allegations.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion, and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegations raised in appellant’s motion. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850; see also Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Van Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). To obtain further review in this cause, either aggrieved party must appeal the new ruling of the trial court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
OTT, C.J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roth v. State, 479 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…980). See Armstrong v. State, 429 So. 2d 287 (Fla.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 203, 78 L.Ed.2d 177 (1983). Nevertheless, we find that the unique circumstances of this case may entitle the defendant to [*850] relief. See Collins v. State, 433 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also McMillian v. State, 411 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Cf. McCrae v. State, 313 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (affirming the denial of a Rule 3.850 motion after an ev…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- VAN Bever v. State, 405 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)