EARNEST BARNES, 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 trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing on claims of failure to investigate an alibi and a coerced confession.
[1] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to investigate an alibi defense is legally sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearin…
[2] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to investigate a coerced confession is legally sufficient to warrant an evidentiary he…
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 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed counsel fai…
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 Coerced Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
HAZOURI, J.
Earnest Barnes appeals from the summary denial of his motion of August 12, 1999, for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The.trial court found Barnes’s motion legally insufficient. Barnes raises several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on two of his claims.
Barnes alleges that his counsel failed to investigate his claim of an alibi defense. Barnes claims that he told his lawyer that he was being fired from his job at the same time the crimes for which he was charged were being committed and that the location of his place of employment was a sufficient distance from the location of the crimes so that he could not have been in both places at the same time. Although Barnes did not identify the witness by name that would support his defense, that is not an essential requirement before the trial court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing. It is sufficient for Barnes to make a brief statement of the facts to support his claim. See Cunningham v. State, 748 So. 2d 328, 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Morales v. State, 731 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Barnes also claims that his counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate his claim that he was coerced into confessing by the police officers who interrogated him. Although Barnes does not specify the officers who coerced his confession, these factual allegations are also sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
If Barnes had an alibi or if his confession had been coerced, the failure of his lawyer to investigate either of these claims could certainly be a valid basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We find that all other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel alleged in Barnes’s post-conviction motion are without merit.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ASH v. State, 767 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…bstance of the testimony the witness would provide and how he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present this testimony. It was not necessary for appellant to identify the witness. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1999); Barnes v. State, 757 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Zonecol v. State, 740 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Morales v. State, 731 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Appellant’s second claim, that defense counsel was ineffective based on mis-advice regarding the consequences of going to…
-
Johnson v. State, 799 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ling to call three alibi witnesses that would have testified that he was with them in Tampa at the time of the crime which occurred in Fort Myers. Johnson has included sufficient facts to make a facially sufficient claim, see, e.g., Barnes v. State, 757 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), which is not conclusively refuted by the record attachments. We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing as to this claim only. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. GREE…
-
Wiley v. State, 769 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…insufficient due to Wiley’s omission of the name of the prospective witness. This omission does not render the claim facially insufficient. “It is sufficient for [him] to make a brief statements of the facts • to support his claim.” Barnes v. State, 757 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The trial court must reconsider this claim and, if it once again denies the claim without an evidentiary hearing, support its ruling with attachments to its order. Otherwise, it must conduct an evidentiary hearing. _Wile…
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
- Morales v. State, 731 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Cunningham v. State, 748 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)