CHRISTOPHER LEE PAYNE
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.
The appellate court reviewed the denial of a postconviction relief motion. While most grounds were affirmed, one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was reversed and remanded for further proceedings because the lower court's denial was not conclusively supported by the record.
The summary denial of the claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call exculpatory witnesses was not appropriate. The record did not conclusively refute the claim, and the defendant should be given an opportunity to amend his motion.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a legally insufficient motion for postconviction relief unless the defect is uncorrectable.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and call exculpatory witnesses may not be summarily denied if the record does not conclusively ref…
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“Because the record does not conclusively refute Payne's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call two exculpatory witnesses, we reverse the summary denial of Ground O.”
Establishes the reversal of the lower court's denial for one specific claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Lee Payne sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and call two exculpatory wit…
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 Amendment Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Christopher Lee Payne appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
We affirm the summary denial of all but one of the grounds raised in his motion. Because the record does not conclusively refute Payne's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call two exculpatory witnesses, we reverse the summary denial of Ground O. See Castro v. State, 240 So. 3d 877, 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (reversing summary denial of defendant's rule 3.850 motion because trial court's inquiry into whether defendant was satisfied with counsel and whether counsel did everything defendant "told him to do" was not specific enough to conclusively refute defendant's claim counsel was ineffective for failing to call witness (citing Evans v. State, 210 So. 3d 704, 705 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017))); Fletcher v. State, 177 So. 3d 1010, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reversing summary denial of defendant's rule 3.850 motion because trial court's inquiry into whether defendant was satisfied with counsel and whether counsel did everything defendant wanted was not specific enough to conclude defendant should have taken opportunity to advise trial court that defense counsel should have called two witnesses).
We would typically remand for the trial court to attach records conclusively refuting the claim or for an evidentiary hearing. Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)).
Instead, because Payne failed to allege his witnesses were available and willing to testify at trial, see Castro, 240 So. 3d at 878 (citing Spellers v. State, 993 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)), we remand with instructions that the trial court strike Ground O and provide Payne with sixty days to amend. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(3); see also Leonardi v. State, 199 So. 3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("A defendant who has filed a legally insufficient rule 3.850 motion must be given at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency, unless it is apparent that the defect cannot be corrected." (citing Luckey v. State, 979 So. 2d 353, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008))). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BERGER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)
- Luckey v. State, 979 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Spellers v. State, 993 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Richard v. Fletcher, 177 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Castro v. State, 240 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Leonardi v. State, 199 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Paris D. Evans v. State, 210 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Shepherd v. State, 210 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)