ALONZO JAMES MACON, 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 appellate court reviewed the denial of a post-conviction relief motion. It found one claim meritless but remanded the case because the trial court failed to provide attachments or hold an evidentiary hearing to support its denial of the remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
The appellate court held that while one of the appellant's claims was without merit, the trial court's summary denial of the remaining claims was improper without providing record attachments or conducting an evidentiary hearing.
“We find Appellant’s first issue is without merit. However, as to the remaining three issues, we are unable to perform an independent review of the trial court’s determination without reviewing portions of record conclusively refuting Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
This quote establishes the court's partial agreement with the appellant and the core reason for remand.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlonzo James Macon appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. He argued that the trial court improperly denied the jury's r…
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 Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Alonzo James Macon, appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he raised four grounds for relief. He claims the trial court failed to afford his counsel an opportunity to respond to the jury’s request for the coroner’s and police reports and witness statements during deliberations. Appellant also claims ineffective assistance of counsel on three grounds: First, he claims his counsel failed to object to the State’s improper and highly prejudicial closing argument, which could have been a decisive factor in the jury’s verdict; he also claims his counsel failed to object to jury instructions where there was no evidence to support the instruction, thereby confusing and misleading the jury; and lastly, he claims ineffective assistance of counsel because, when given an opportunity to do so, his counsel did not object to the trial court’s refusal to provide the jury with the requested reports and statements. After the State responded to a show cause order, the trial court summarily denied the rule 3.850 motion. Although it states otherwise, the trial court’s order denying the motion contained in the record on appeal has no attachments.
We find Appellant’s first issue is without merit. However, as to the remaining three issues, we are unable to perform an independent review of the trial court’s determination without reviewing portions of record conclusively refuting Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Goswick v. State, 658 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record that would conclusively support its determination that Appellant is not entitled to relief on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, or conduct an evidentiary hearing. Brown v. State, 689 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleveland Sinclair v. State, 959 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…claims addressed at the evidentiary hearing, we reverse the summary denial of the other claim because the trial court failed to attach the portions of the record that were referenced as conclusively refuting the claim. See generally, Macon v. State, 751 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). On remand, the trial court is directed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing. Additionally, while the motion was pending, and prior to the expiration of the two-year…
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. Scott, 658 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Goswick v. State, 658 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Brown v. State, 689 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)