KENNETH LLOYD SOMERS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Kenneth Lloyd Somers appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that Somers was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims that trial counsel failed to test a knife for fingerprints and failed to call a key witness who could have contradicted law enforcement's testimony about Somers' conduct.
Somers was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on both claims. The trial court's motion to deny postconviction relief was improper because the record did not conclusively refute the claims; the trial court was required either to attach records conclusively refuting the claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim unless the record conclusively shows the defendant is entitled to no relief.
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims may warrant an evidentiary hearing if the defendant alleges counsel failed to test crucial evidence that could have supported a d…
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“When a postconviction claim is properly made, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the legal standard that Somers' claims must meet for entitlement to a hearing; absent conclusive refutation in the record, a hearing must be held.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSomers was convicted of a crime involving a knife. He claimed self-defense. According to his postconviction motion, trial counsel did not test the kni…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Kenneth Lloyd Somers, appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant argues on appeal, inter alia, that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to test a knife for fingerprints, and (2) to call Mr. Glassmore as a witness at trial.
Specifically, Appellant argues that only the victim’s fingerprints were on the knife, which would have supported his claim of self-defense. Further, he argues that Mr. Glassmore, his neighbor, would have directly contradicted law enforcement’s testimony that Appellant was hiding in his neighbor’s shed when law enforcement arrived. Instead, he alleges that Mr. Glassmore would have testified that Appellant ran over to his house to call 911, but that he decided not to call 911 when he heard sirens. Additionally, he alleges Mr. Glassmore would have testified that Appellant was returning to his home to meet with law enforcement as they arrived, and that he never entered the shed. Appellant observes that this testimony would have weakened the State’s argument that hiding from law enforcement evidenced a guilty mind.
When a postconviction claim is properly made, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief. O’Callaghan v. State, 461 So. 2d 1354, 1355 (Fla. 1984). We conclude that Appellant’s motion was sufficient as to these claims and these claims were not conclusively refuted by the records attached to the trial court’s order. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach records that conclusively refute these claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing. We otherwise affirm.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.
EVANDER, C.J., COHEN and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 2