WILLIAM MICHAEL SQUIRES, 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.
Florida Supreme Court reviewed the denial of William Squires' motion for postconviction relief in a capital case. The court found that Squires was entitled to evidentiary hearings on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding failure to interview a potential witness and challenge incriminating statements, and on Brady violation allegations concerning exculpatory materials.
The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to: (1) ineffective assistance claims regarding counsel's failure to interview Donald Hynes as a witness and failure to challenge Squires' incriminating statements, and (2) Brady violations concerning whether Detective Peterson's deposition statements about Hynes were misleading and whether the state withheld Hynes' police statement.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief must be denied without an evidentiary hearing if the motion, on its face, conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief.
[2] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel if the allegations, if true, would establish deficient performance and p…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Since the court neither held an evidentiary hearing nor attached any portion of the record to the order of denial, our review is limited to determining whether the motion on its face conclusively shows that Squires is entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the standard of review for denials of postconviction motions without an evidentiary hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSquires had been convicted and sentenced to death, with that conviction previously affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court in 1984. He filed a motion fo…
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 Exculpatory Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This Court previously affirmed Squires’ conviction and sentence of death. Squires v. State, 450 So. 2d 208 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 892, 105 S.Ct. 268, 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984). We now have for review the denial of Squires’ motion for postconviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. Since the court neither held an evidentiary hearing nor attached any portion of the record to the order of denial, our review is limited to determining whether the motion on its face conclusively shows that Squires is entitled to no relief. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
Squires raises several points on this appeal, only two of which merit any discussion. Squires claims that he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial attorney rendered him ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree, but only in so far as his claims relate to defense counsel’s alleged failure to interview Donald Hynes as a possible defense witness and counsel’s alleged failure to challenge Squires’ incriminating statements made to law enforcement and correctional officers.
Squires additionally alleges that certain exculpatory materials were withheld from him by the state in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and that he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing on this issue as well. Again, we agree. Upon remand to the trial court, the judge shall explore the allegations of Brady violations, but only as they relate to the following two issues: first, whether Detective Peterson’s deposition statements concerning Donald Hynes were misleading to the defense, and second, whether the state should have furnished the police report of Hynes’ statement to the defense.
As to the other issues raised by Squires on this appeal, we have considered all of them and find each to be without merit. We therefore affirm as to those issues, but reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issues specified in this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J„ and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gorham v. State, 521 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1988)…iary hearing and without attaching any portion of the record to the order of denial, our review is limited to determining whether the motion conclusively shows on its face that Gorham is entitled to no relief. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850; Squires v. State, 513 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1987). Gorham first urges that the trial court should have either granted an eviden-tiary hearing regarding the State’s alleged failure to disclose critical exculpatory evidence despite specific requests for such evidence by defense counsel in…
-
Davis v. State, 559 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), we found the motion was legally sufficient. Denial of a motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is proper where the trial court attaches portions of the record refuting the defendant’s allegations. Squires v. State, 513 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1987); Taylor v. State, 505 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Because the trial court failed to include those attachments, we reversed and remanded with directions to either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach to the order those portions of the…
-
Waters v. State, 612 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…mited. We must accept the movant’s allegations as true, and from that premise determine whether the motion conclusively shows that the movant is not entitled to relief. See, e.g., Gorham v. State, [*686] 521 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.1988); Squires v. State, 513 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1987); Debose v. State, 580 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Davis v. State, 571 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Waters’s allegations regarding the involuntary nature of his plea are facially sufficient and are not refuted by any records before…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Squires v. State, 450 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1984)
- Lewis v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 469 U.S. 892 (U.S. 1984)
- Navios Corp. v. United States, 469 U.S. 892 (U.S. 1984)