EDWARD FREEMAN, 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 held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching relevant portions of the record.
The defendant appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the int…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward Freeman appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction re lief, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse as to only one of his allegations regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. The order is affirmed in all other respects.
Freeman contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of a defective copy of a videotape and of still photographs taken from the videotape. Freeman alleges that the original, a clear videotape, would have conclusively established that he did not commit the crime. He further alleges that the original was available and his counsel should have insisted upon its use.
The trial court’s order denied the motion we have considered without any attachments save the response filed by the state. The state’s bare bones response merely concluded that it believed “the matters were sufficiently handled at trial,” but suggested that the court hold an evidentiary hearing in the event it believed one was necessary. The trial court did not conduct a hearing. Thus, absent attaching any portions of the trial transcript or holding an evidentiary hearing, we are unable to determine whether this facially sufficient allegation has merit.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings with respect to the allegation set forth above.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sherwood v. State, 208 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…nial of his Motion for Postconviction Relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find that Sherwood’s claim in Ground One is not conclusively refuted by the record and warrants remand for an evidentia-ry hearing. See Freeman v. State, 616 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We affirm the trial court’s denial of the remaining grounds without further discussion. AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; REMANDED. SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.-…
-
Devoran Ellis v. State, 221 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…d that he did not commit the charged crimes, but rather that he was physically attacked without cause by the police officer in question. Ellis’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Freeman v. State, 616 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that counsel’s alleged failure to present videotape evidence, which allegedly would have established defendant’s innocence, constituted facially sufficient postconviction claim). On remand, the trial court shall either…