ROBERT DALE KELLER, 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.
Robert Dale Keller appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that where a defendant's ineffective assistance claim is facially sufficient, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach record portions conclusively demonstrating entitlement to no relief.
The trial court's summary denial was improper. While the first ground (prosecutorial non-disclosure) was facially insufficient and properly rejected, the second ground (ineffective assistance based on failure to investigate) was facially sufficient. When a Rule 3.850 motion alleges facially sufficient grounds, the trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record conclusively demonstrating the defendant is entitled to no relief.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is facially sufficient if it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to investigate sources of evidence h…
[2] A trial court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record that conclusively demonstrate a defendant is entitled to no relief when denying…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the trial court tacitly recognized the facial sufficiency of appellant's motion. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, or to attach those portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that appellant was entitled to no relief.”
Establishes the core holding that facially sufficient Rule 3.850 allegations require either a hearing or conclusive record attachment
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeller filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 raising two grounds: (1) prosecutorial failure to disclose favorable evidence, and (…
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 Facially Sufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Robert Dale Keller appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse.
The trial court properly rejected Keller’s first ground for relief, that the prosecutor failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, because this allegation was insufficient on its face. However, Keller’s second ground, ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to investigate sources of evidence helpful to the defense, was facially sufficient.
The trial court’s order denying Keller’s motion without an evidentiary hearing was expressly based on Keller’s motion and memo, the state’s response, and “the record,” but the court did not attach portions of the record supporting its denial of the motion. In its answer brief, filed pursuant to this court’s order, the state concedes that the trial court’s denial of appellant's motion was. not predicated on the legal insufficiency of the allegations and that the trial court did not conform to the requirements of Rule 3.850.
The trial court tacitly recognized the facial sufficiency of appellant’s motion. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, or to attach those portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that appellant was entitled to no relief. Harden v. State, 528 So. 2d 544 (Pla. 1st DCA 1988); Russell v. State, 521 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Knight v. State, 517 So. 2d 87 (Pla. 1st DCA 1987); Hall v. State, 511 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Havis v. State, 506 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
This case is REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents, with opinion.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment below on the grounds that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails to meet the requirements of Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981), in that the motion fails to indicate how the alleged improper investigation jeopardized the defense. Under the holding of the Knight case, the court is not required to speculate on the importance, if any, of the information or evidence which defendant claims should have been presented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 646 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…the ease should be remanded with instructions to reconsider the motion and either attach portions of the record that conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief or, alternatively, to grant an evidentiary hearing. Id.; Keller v. State, 551 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). [*813] In both Sorgman and Keller, the defendants related specific facts in their motions and alleged that defense counsel failed to investigate sources of evidence or particular witnesses that would have cast doubt on the…
-
Bart A. Greenway v. State, 823 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…hat this evidence would show how much force had been used against his wife and himself, and that defense counsel’s failure to adduce the evidence prejudiced him at trial. See Wright v. State, 646 So. 2d 811, 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Keller v. State, 551 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Mr. Greenway adequately alleged that defense counsel failed to prepare and present adequately a potentially viable defense to the jury in these particulars. Although defense counsel’s decisions regarding which evidence to…
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- COX v. State, 517 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Colin H. Russell v. State, 521 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Dawson Eugene Havis v. State, 506 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Hall v. State, 511 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Harden v. State, 528 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)