MIGUEL ANGEL ACEVEDO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Miguel Acevedo appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing despite allegations that raised genuine questions about counsel's effectiveness.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the record did not conclusively show that Acevedo was entitled to no relief. The case was reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing under Strickland v. Washington standards.
[1] An order denying a motion for post-conviction relief must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively shows the appellant is entitl…
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are governed by the standards set forth in Strickland v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the mandatory standard requiring reversal and remand when post-conviction relief claims cannot be conclusively rejected based on the record alone.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAcevedo, an armed security guard, was convicted of aggravated battery in 1990 and sentenced to three years incarceration after shooting a victim in th…
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 Impeachment Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Miguel Acevedo appeals an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse.
Acevedo was convicted of aggravated battery in 1990 and sentenced to incarceration for three years. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The trial court entertained argument by counsel, but did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied the motion and Acevedo has appealed.
Under Rule 9.140(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, “Unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing.” Based on the relatively scanty record before us, and our perusal of the file on Acevedo’s prior appeal, Acevedo v. State, 574 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), it appears that Acevedo was an armed security guard. He got into an altercation with the victim. The victim testified that Acevedo drew his gun and shot him in the leg. There was conflicting evidence that Acevedo did fire his gun, but pointed it at the ground. On this theory, the shooting was accidental, resulting from a bullet ricochet which hit the victim.
Acevedo contends that his trial counsel was ineffective by reason of not bringing out the fact that the victim had filed a civil lawsuit against the security guard company, in which the victim claimed that the shooting was accidental. Acevedo also contends that the jury was not informed that the victim had described the episode to the fire rescue personnel as a “drive by” shooting, rather than the encounter described at trial. Acevedo also contends that the victim could have been impeached by reason of prior felony convictions, and for other reasons, and that trial counsel did not undertake the impeachment. Several other allegations are made, which need not be detailed here.
In light of the contents of the motion, we are unable to say that “the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief,” Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g), and we therefore reverse the order under review and remand for an evidentiary hearing under the standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington. See Harris v. State, 495 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Harris v. State, 495 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Acevedo v. State, 574 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)