WILLIE L. LEDBETTER, 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 the motion for postconviction relief was facially sufficient on ground five and required further proceedings.
Ledbetter appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate a…
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 Facially Sufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Willie L. Ledbetter timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of all his grounds except ground five. On that ground only, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In ground five, Ledbetter alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate, interview, and depose a specified witness. The motion includes details of the witness’s alleged testimony which, if true, might exculpate Ledbetter. Therefore, the motion is facially sufficient. See Sorgman v. State, 549 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Counsel’s failure to properly investigate a defense witness is properly raised by a post-conviction relief motion. See Young v. State, 511 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The order denying the motion fails to attach .any portion of the record or file that reflates this allegation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to reconsider this ground and to attach those portions of the file and record which conclusively show that Ledbetter is not entitled to relief, or, alternatively, to grant an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Houston v. State, 701 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…n of condition four on three occasions, relying on the reasoning in Malone and Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).7 On the other hand, we have refused to strike condition four on other occasions, citing to Hart. See Daughtry v. State, 681 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Powell v. State, 681 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Ringling v. State, 678 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In the same period, the Fourth District has stricken a portion of this condition on one occasion and refused to strike it…
-
Currelly v. State, 732 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…uld have corroborated another exculpatory witness had they been called at trial. We determine that his motion is legally sufficient and should not have been summarily denied. See Young v. State, 511 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Ledbetter v. State, 681 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sorgman v. State, 549 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). On remand, the trial court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on ground II. Mr. Currelly also asserts that the trial court attached the wrong judgment and sentence to its ord…
-
Lages v. State, 685 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…merit. The remaining five issues which relate to ineffective assistance of counsel will require the trial court to refute them by attaching portions of the record supporting denial or by granting Lages an evidentiary hearing. See Ledbetter v. State, 681 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Those issues are: (1) the defense attorney conceding in opening statement to the jury that Lages was guilty of six of the eight charged felonies; (2) the defense attorney’s failure to impeach the alleged vie- [*970] tim of the se…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sorgman v. State, 549 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Young v. State, 511 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)