EARL MOORE, JR., 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 appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on advice to plead guilty despite knowledge of a key witness's non-appearance, presented a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may present a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief when it alleges that counsel advised a guilty plea despite knowing…
[2] A motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is sufficient to require further consideration if it asserts that counsel knew or should hav…
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 intelligenceEarl Moore appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel allegedly advised …
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 Prima Facie Showing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Earl Moore appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Of the numerous issues raised m the motion, only one presents a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. Moore contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial attorney. Specifically, he alleges that counsel advised him to enter a plea of guilty although he knew that the victim in this case would not appear for trial.
The trial court’s order finds that this portion of the motion fails to satisfy the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As a result there are no record excerpts or other documents attached to the order of denial. Admittedly the motion is not drafted with the precision we would expect of a trained attorney. However, as we interpret Moore’s claim, he asserts, that counsel knew or should have known the case could not go forward. In Prieto v. State, 573 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), we found potential ineffectiveness in the alleged failure to locate and produce a witness who could testify that no crime occurred. The present claim is similar in principle and, given our limited scope of review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), we must conclude that it is sufficient to require further consideration by the trial court.
The order denying postconviction relief is affirmed in all other respects.
After remand the trial court should examine the files and records in this case and determine whether anything therein conclusively refutes Moore’s claim of ineffective assistance. If so, the court may again deny the motion, attaching whatever documentation it has relied upon. If not, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a timely notice to obtain further appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Prieto v. State, 573 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)