LAMAR A. BENNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 trial court's summary denial of the defendant's motion was erroneous regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and jail time credit, requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing when the record does not conclusively show t…
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call specific witnesses may warrant an evidentiary hearing if the motion sets forth with particularit…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call witnesses and improp…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of the trial court’s summary denial of defendant-appellant Bennett’s rule 3.850 motion. Finding that the record does not show conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order is reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.140G).
Our reversal is limited to points I and VII of the defendant’s motion. On point I, defendant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call two specifically named witnesses to testify at trial. The motion sets forth with particularity what the witnesses would have testified to, and the proposed testimony would have provided (so far as appears on the record before us) material independent support to defendant’s defense of misidentification.
On point VII, defendant contends that the Department of Corrections has failed to award him 243 days credit for jail time served on count I of circuit court case number 96-17149, even though the sentencing order awards such credit. Defendant has supported this claim with a memorandum from the Department of Corrections which confirms that it has granted zero jail time credit on count I (his longer sentence), while awarding 243 days jail time credit on count II (the shorter sentence). Since the defendant’s incarceration time is governed by the longer sentence, the practical effect is to deny jail time credit entirely on circuit court case number 96-17149.1 Plainly the record does not refute the defendant’s claim— indeed, the record confirms it.
The summary denial of relief is correct with regard to the remaining claims. The trial court’s order is thus reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings on points I and VII.
. From the attachments to the motion it appears that the defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections. If it should turn out that administrative remedies have not been exhausted, then the claim can be denied without prejudice while the defendant exhausts those remedies.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barrington Patterson v. State, 784 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…s has properly credited Patterson with 392 days credit for time served in accordance with the trial court’s order, we note that the defendant must first exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the Department of Corrections. Bennett v. State, 732 So. 2d 1130, 1131 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Accordingly, this affirmance is without prejudice to Patterson re-raising this issue once he has exhausted the administrative remedies provided by the Department of Corrections. Affirmed.…
-
Torres v. State, 917 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…that the movant is entitled to no relief. Thus we must treat the allegations as true except to the extent they are rebutted conclusively by the record.” Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331, 1333 (Fla.1997) (citation omitted); see also Bennett v. State, 732 So. 2d 1130, 1130-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (ordering evidentiary hearing on motion [*890] that set “forth with particularity what the witnesses would have testified to” where the “proposed testimony would have provided ... material independent support to defendant…