JOHN BRYANT, 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 documentation attached to the trial court's order did not conclusively refute the appellant's claim of coercion by trial counsel, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging his trial counsel coerced him into testifying. The trial court denied relief, but the appellate court…
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 Right To Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Bryant appeals the denial after remand of his motion for posteonviction relief. Since the documentation attached to the trial court’s order does not conclusively refute the claim, we again remand for further proceedings on the issue of whether trial counsel coerced appellant. into testifying in circuit court case number 90-1387.
In our prior review of this case, we remanded because the trial court denied relief without attaching portions of the record refuting appellant’s claims. Bryant v. State, 641 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Attached to the second order denying relief are portions of the trial transcript, discovery documents, certificates of service, and responses to the mandate filed by defense counsel and the state. These documents do not, however, refute appellant’s allegation that he was coerced into testifying.
The documentation attached to the order that purports to refute this claim is a written response from the defense counsel denying the allegation. As we said in Morris v. State, 624 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) and Cintron v. State, 508 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), affidavits generally cannot sub stitute for live testimony that is subject to cross-examination. Similarly, the response filed by defense counsel in this case -will not suffice to refute appellant’s claim.
We remand this case to the trial court with directions to grant Bryant an evidentiary hearing on his claim that he was coerced into testifying by his trial attorney in circuit court case number 90-1387 only. We affirm the denial of relief on the other claims raised by appellant. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court may file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…n motion are not substitutes [*1352] for an evidentiary hearing, whether they be affidavits, Morris v. State, 624 So. 2d 864 (Pla. 2d DCA 1993), a written statement by a defense attorney responding to accusations of ineffectiveness, Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), or, as here, a court ordered response. The growing practice of incorporating state responses into orders denying post-conviction motions is not substitute for the record attachments necessary in many cases for the trial courts t…
-
Clark v. State, 662 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…93); Cintron v. State, 508 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). A written response filed by defendant’s trial counsel refuting a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel likewise has been found recently to be insufficient to refute the claim. Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). If we ignore, as we must, the state’s assertion in its response that Clark failed to copy the state with its IAD request, his allegation of ineffective assistance is facially sufficient. See Williams v. State, 452 So. 2d 657 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Cintron v. State, 508 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Morris v. State, 624 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Bryant v. State, 641 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Redifer v. State, 641 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)