DAVID LEE JONES, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of a postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's alleged abandonment of a voluntary intoxication defense, finding the denial procedurally deficient for lack of supporting documentation.
A trial court's summary denial of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be accompanied by portions of the files and records refuting the claim, or the denial is reversible error.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be supported by portions of the case files and records refuting the claim,…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Lee Jones was convicted and filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging four instances of ineffective …
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Lee Jones appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Jones raised four allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, only the last of which is facially sufficient. Specifically, Jones contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that his counsel abandoned Jones’ only defense supported by the record, i.e., voluntary intoxication. Although the trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, he did not attach to his order any portion of the files or records to refute this claim.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of this allegation of Jones’ motion and remand the case to the trial court. The summary denial of the remaining allegations is affirmed. On remand, unless the files and records of the case conclusively show that Jones is entitled to no relief, the court shall order the state attorney to file an answer within a time certain. After receipt of the answer, the court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the court should again deny Jones’ motion, he has thirty days in which to appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court with instructions.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nickolls v. Univ. OF Fla. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 606 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…uld reasonably be anticipated, then the JCC erred. The only evidence before the JCC relating to MMI pertained solely to claimant having achieved such status from an orthopedic standpoint — not from a psychiatric standpoint. See Scott v. Amick Corp., 529 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The E/C nonetheless argues that the claimant’s need for psychiatric care and a pain support recovery group was not ripe for hearing. Although it is true that the initial claim did not make a specific request for same, an amende…
-
Perry v. Ridgecrest Int'l & CNA Ins., 548 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…upported by the evidence in this case because we agree with appellant’s contention that this defense to payment of the medical expenses was not properly noticed and therefore should not have been considered by the deputy. Scott v. Amick Corporation, 529 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accordingly, the award of payment for Dr. Gard’s treatment is affirmed and the denial of payment for other out-of-state treatment and evaluation is reversed. We also reverse the denial of appellant’s claim for payment of medica…