JIMMY D. CAMPBELL, 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's summary denial of the motion for postconviction relief was insufficient to refute the allegation of ineffective counsel.
Jimmy D. Campbell appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to invest…
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 Evidentiary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jimmy D. Campbell appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. This is the third time this motion has been presented to this court. See Campbell v. State, 616 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Campbell v. State, 624 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Previously, this court has held that only issue which may have merit is Campbell’s allegation that his counsel was ineffective for failure to properly investigate the possible existence of crucial medical witnesses. The trial court has again denied the motion and asserts that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary as the trial transcript shows that this evidence would be irrelevant. We disagree.
In our last opinion, this court set forth specific inquiries which should be made by the trial court. Campbell, 642 So. 2d at 843. The trial court directs this court to six pages within the record and attaches an incomplete transcript in support of its most recent denial. The attachments are insufficient to refute the allegation that defense counsel may have been ineffective. The order denying the motion is reversed and the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing to address Campbell’s allegation as discussed herein.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stevens v. State, 651 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ould have attached documentation evidencing the arrest and sentencing dates, or documentation that refutes appellant’s claim. Faust v. State, 644 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); McCloud v. State, 638 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Alexander v. State, 638 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Other than appellant’s statement to the trial court that he had been in custody for six and one-half months, the appellate record contains no definitive explanation as to the amount of time appellant actually served in each case.…
-
Sherrod v. State, 643 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…s facially sufficient; however, neither Sherrod nor the court attaches portions of the record which substantiate or refute the argument. We continue to require attachments to orders denying relief in rule 3.850 proceedings. See Alexander v. State, 638 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial as it relates to the above-described issue and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies the motion, it must attach those portions of the record that refute Sherro…
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 616 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Stevens, 616 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Campbell v. State, 624 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)