WILLIE A. BROWN, 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.
Court reversed in part a summary denial of a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion, finding that claims of ineffective assistance regarding failure to investigate defenses and allowing a guilty plea without evidentiary basis were facially sufficient and required an evidentiary hearing.
A defendant's Rule 3.850 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are facially sufficient when he alleges his attorney failed to investigate and inform him of available defenses or allowed him to plead guilty to a crime lacking evidentiary basis, requiring an evidentiary hearing rather than summary denial.
[1] A defendant's Rule 3.850 claim of ineffective assistance is facially sufficient when alleging counsel failed to investigate and inform him of available defenses such as d…
[2] A defendant's Rule 3.850 claim that trial counsel was ineffective in allowing him to plead guilty to a crime lacking evidentiary basis is facially sufficient and requires…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Brown pleaded guilty to robbery and armed robbery. He filed a Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, alleging his …
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 Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order by which his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion was summarily denied. We reverse the order in part because the appellant stated facially sufficient claims which were not refuted by attachments to the order. The appellant entered a plea of guilty to robbery and armed robbery and was convicted of those offenses. He presented various claims of ineffective assistance of trial coun sel in his motion for post-conviction relief, and he alleged that he would not have pled-guilty but for his attorney’s ineffectiveness. His allegations regarding his counsel’s failure to investigate and inform him of the availability of duress and voluntary intoxication defenses were facially sufficient. See Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Brunson v. State, 605 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). And his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in allowing him to plead to a crime for which there was no evidentiary basis was likewise facially sufficient. See Baker v. State, 620 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Hall v. State, 603 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). But his remaining claims were not facially sufficient.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing or for the trial court to attach portions of the record refuting the appellant’s facially sufficient claims.
MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thornton Brunson v. State, 605 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Swain v. Bernie Howell, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Hall v. State, 603 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Baker v. State, 620 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)