WILLIAM EARL BANKS, 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 reversed in part a summary denial of postconviction relief, holding that trial counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to raise a hypothesis of innocence and preventing the defendant from testifying requires an evidentiary hearing or substantiating findings rather than summary denial.
Trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in failing to raise a hypothesis of innocence and preventing the defendant from testifying cannot be summarily denied without substantiating findings or an evidentiary hearing.
[1] Summary denial of postconviction relief claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness requires substantiating findings or an evidentiary hearing; harmlessness cannot be presume…
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 intelligenceBanks appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging trial counsel's …
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 Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We conclude that the motion was properly denied except as to the allegation that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a hypothesis of innocence (as specified in ground 11), and in refusing to allow the appellant to testify (ground 7). Although the court found that these alleged deficits would not have affected the outcome of the trial, the appealed order contains no substantiating attachment and such harmlessness will not be presumed. Goswick v. State, 658 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also Williams v. State, 601 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Indeed, there is some disagreement between the various districts as to whether the harmless error doctrine could even apply to the alleged preclusion of the appellant’s testimony. Compare State v. Oisorio, 657 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. granted, 662 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1995), with Gill v. State, 632 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Wilson v. State, 647 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
The appealed order is reversed in part as indicated herein, and otherwise affirmed. The case is remanded for the judge to either provide the necessary attachments or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dante v. State, 903 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…Jackson v. State, 464 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1985)). When a [*295] trial court improperly denies a defendant’s request for a peremptory challenge and the issue is properly preserved for appellate review, reversal is therefore required. See Green v. State, 673 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Smith v. State, 662 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Telemaque v. State, 591 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). This court has long held that a timely objection is required to preserve the issue for appeal, as it affords the trial j…
-
Stewart v. State, 902 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…attach portions of the record that refute Appellant’s claims. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 840 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Although the trial court found that any error was harmless, this Court will not presume harmlessness. See Banks v. State, 673 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court is directed to attach the portions which refute the claims. In the alternative, the trial court may hold an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claims. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WOLF, C.J.; and DAVIS,…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 647 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Gill v. State, 632 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Williams v. State, 601 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Bobo v. Caterair Int'l Corp., 657 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- State v. Oisorio, 657 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Wright v. Scott, 658 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Goswick v. State, 658 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)