CLEOPHUS MCCASKILL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1996-01-31
No. 95-2229
Miner, J., Wolf, J., Van Nortwick, J.
666 So. 2d 1049 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief except for ineffective assistance claim based on counsel's failure to investigate two witnesses who could identify the actual perpetrator, remanding for evidentiary hearing on that issue.


Holding

Trial counsel's alleged failure to investigate two witnesses identified by the defendant as able to identify the actual perpetrator constitutes a cognizable ineffective assistance claim requiring an evidentiary hearing.


Headnotes

[1] On a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief where no evidentiary hearing is held, allegations not conclusively rebutted by the record must be accepted as true, and…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

Cleophus McCaskill was convicted of an offense and filed a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief alleging that he had advised his defense couns…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Cleophus McCaskill seeks reversal of an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the denial of relief as to all matters raised in the motion except the allegation that appellant advised his defense counsel of the identity of two witnesses, Cynthia Moore and Christopher Moore, who could identify the actual perpetrator of the offense of which appellant was convicted.1 Appellant alleges that defense counsel did not make an inquiry of these two witnesses and hence did not incorporate these witnesses into appellant’s defense. We therefore remand for an evidentiary hearing regarding trial counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance for failure to investigate these two witnesses, or for the attachment of record excerpts refuting this ineffective assistance claim.

We affirm the denial of relief as to the other allegations because the remaining allegations are either matters already considered on direct appeal or are legally insufficient for failure to indicate prejudice.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . Because no evidentiary hearing was entertained in this cause, we must accept as true those allegations not conclusively rebutted by the record. Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (Fla.1986).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Marrow v. State, 715 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
    …ains how the omission prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” See Jackson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1371, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1472, D1473 (Fla. 4th DCA June 17, 1998), citing Sorgman v. State, 549 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also McCaskill v. State, 666 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Thomas v. State, 639 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Appellant in this case alleged that he asked defense counsel to interview and to call as a witness an individual known as Chuck. The motion states that Chuck bears mor…
  • Cole Augustus Urquhart v. State, 676 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
    …stance claims based upon counsel’s failure to adequately investigate and consider a defense may be sufficient to require further proceedings, depending upon the specificity of the factual allegations in support of each claim. See McCaskill v. State, 666 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Appellant in this ease pled nolo con-tendere to numerous charges, including attempted burglary, and burglary of a structure, both of which are specific intent crimes. Ellis v…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw