WILLIAM MADDRY, 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.
William Maddry appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to properly object to the admission of similar fact evidence at trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly relied on an affidavit not in the record to deny the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court erred in relying on an affidavit not part of the record to refute claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The order denying the motion is reversed and remanded for the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or deny the motion with portions of the record that conclusively demonstrate no relief is warranted.
[1] A trial court cannot rely on an affidavit submitted by the State to refute claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for postconviction relief without holdi…
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to amend an order denying a motion for postconviction relief after a notice of appeal has been filed.
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 intelligence“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, or to obviate the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the core procedural error—using non-record materials to deny an ineffective assistance claim without a hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaddry was convicted of three counts of sexual battery by a person in familial authority upon a child over twelve years old. On direct appeal, a panel…
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 Similar Fact Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Maddry appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing, if necessary.
On direct appeal from Maddry’s conviction and sentence for three counts of sexual battery by a person in familial authority upon a child over the age of twelve years, the majority of a panel of this court refused to reach the question of the admissibility of certain similar fact evidence, on grounds the issue had not been preserved. Maddry v. State, 585 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The one judge who considered the question on -its merits expressed the view that reversible error had occurred. Id. at 361-363 (Barfield, J., dissenting).
Chief among Mr. Maddry’s claims in the collateral proceeding is the contention that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object properly to the admission of the similar fact evidence so as fully to preserve the issue of its admissibility for appellate review. In originally determining that Mr. Maddry was not entitled to relief, the trial court expressly relied on an affidavit of defense counsel1 submitted by the State in response to Maddry’s motion. The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, or to obviate the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. Havis v. State, 555 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The trial court did not attach other portions of the record that might demonstrate that Maddry is entitled to no relief.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court either to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to deny the motion and attach portions of the record that conclusively show appellant is entitled to no relief on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
JOANOS, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur. . The trial court, through an amendment to the order denying the motion, later disavowed any reliance upon the affidavit of defense counsel. The amended order was entered on March 15, 1994, however, after Maddry had filed his notice of appeal. The trial court was, as the State concedes, without jurisdiction to enter the amended order, and it is of no effect. See Critton v. State, 619 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. General Lee Mitchell, 719 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…one’s license is suspended or revoked on double jeopardy grounds, and transferring the two remaining misdemeanors to the county court. However, the amended order was a nullity because the trial court no longer had jurisdiction. See Maddry v. State, 649 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an amended order denying relief after a notice of appeal had been filed). As an initial matter, we note that the statement of the issue in the state’s brief asserts that it was rever…
-
Ciambrone v. State, 128 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…e must reverse summary denial and remand the case for the post-conviction court to attach documents that are properly before it and that conclusively refute Ciambrone’s allegation or to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See Maddry v. State, 649 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, or to obviate the necessity of an e…
-
Forte v. State, 189 So. 3d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…deny relief [in Heather Ciambrone’s case].”); Cintron v. State, 504 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that the phrase “files and records” as used in rule 3.850 excludes matters outside the official court record); see also Maddry v. State, 649 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“The affidavit of a single witness, which was not a part of the record at the time the motion was filed, cannot be employed to refute Maddry’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, or to obviate the necessity of an e…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddry v. State, 585 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Randall v. State, 555 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Dawson Eugene Havis v. State of Fla. & George L. Carlisle, 555 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Critton v. State, 619 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)