DAVID ALLEN SHIVER, 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 affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on four grounds but reversed and remanded on one ground regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to examine a detective about the appellant's injuries in a self-defense murder case.
A trial court's denial of a Rule 3.850 motion must be supported by specific references to the trial record, and where the court fails to attach or cite the record, reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing is required.
[1] A trial court's order denying a Rule 3.850 motion must be accompanied by specific references to the trial record or portions of the record supporting its conclusions, and…
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 Allen Shiver was charged with murder and claimed self-defense. The jury heard testimony that Shiver was struck twice by the victim, but never he…
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 Self-Defense Theory cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Allen Shiver appeals a final order denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 as to each of the five grounds for relief raised therein. We af firm the order in all respects except one. Issue two of ground one alleges that Appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to examine Detective Dean regarding injuries to Appellant on the night of the incident, and that this was critical because Appellant was relying on the theory of self-defense to the murder charge, the jury knew only that Appellant was hit twice by the victim, the jury never heard a confirmed statement of the actual injuries Appellant sustained in the incident, and the Detective was the only witness who could confirm the nature of Appellant’s injuries. The trial court denied the motion as to this issue on the ground that: “In the overall context of the trial, this was certainly not a significant issue. The defendant points out that there was indeed testimony that the Defendant had been struck by the victim.” No part of the trial transcript supporting this conclusion was attached to the order; therefore, we are constrained to reverse as to that issue and remand with directions either to attach the portion of the files and record that conclusively shows that Appellant is entitled to no relief or to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850(d) (1993).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
ZEHMER, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 656 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…officers before he used any force in return. This allegation is facially sufficient to warrant attachment of those portions of the record conclusively showing no entitlement to relief, or, alternatively, an evidentia-ry hearing. See Shiver v. State, 616 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Sorgman v. State, 549 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In the order denying relief, the trial court attached the following documents: (1) an order for taking and payment of costs of depositions; (2) a motion to transport, naming…