ANTHONY D. MORAGNE, 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.
Anthony Moragne appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on an alibi defense. The court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court's denial was not supported by adequate record attachments and that Moragne's claim was not conclusively refuted.
The trial court's summary denial was improper because Moragne's claim was not conclusively refuted by the documents attached to the denial order. The trial court would have needed to attach record portions showing Moragne's whereabouts during the charged period and his alibi witness testimony to rebut the claim without a hearing.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request an alibi jury instruction is cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief.
[2] A defendant's misidentification of trial counsel does not defeat a claim for postconviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because Mo-ragne's claim is not conclusively refuted by the record attachments, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand the case for reconsideration.”
Establishes the standard and basis for reversal—that summary denial without adequate record attachments is improper when the claim is not conclusively refuted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1998, Moragne was convicted by jury of grand theft of a motor vehicle. One witness at trial apparently provided an alibi for Moragne. The informati…
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.
Anthony D. Moragne appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because Mo-ragne’s claim is not conclusively refuted by the record attachments, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand the case for reconsideration.
In 1998, Moragne was found guilty by a jury of grand theft of a motor vehicle. He alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the alibi defense, and that he would have been acquitted but for this omission of his counsel. This is a cognizable claim. See Lenoir v. State, 741 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). It appears from Mo-ragne’s inartfully drafted motion that one of the witnesses actually provided an alibi for Moragne at trial.
The trial court directed the State to respond to Moragne’s motion. The attorney who responded on behalf of the State pointed out that Moragne had misidentified his trial counsel and did not address the substance of his claim. Moragne’s misidentification of his trial counsel does not defeat his claim, and the State’s response could not have been helpful to the trial court.
The trial court based its denial of Mo-ragne’s motion on its reading of the infor mation, which charges that Moragne “did ... obtain or use, or endeavor to obtain or use” a motor vehicle from a car dealer on February 5, 1998. The court found that Moragne’s presence when the vehicle was stolen was not germane to the charge. Therefore, according to the trial court, an alibi instruction would not have assisted Moragne.
The trial court’s conclusion that an alibi instruction was not needed under the facts of the case may be correct, but it is not supported by the documents attached to the order denying the motion. While the wording of the charge against Mo-ragne does not establish whether the State alleged that he actually took the vehicle off the car lot, the evidence presented at trial presumably would have shown Moragne’s exact role in the offense. Consequently, to rebut Moragne’s allegations without a hearing, the trial court would have had to attach those portions of the record that showed Moragne’s whereabouts during the time period covered by the charges as supported by the evidence and by his alibi witness.
On remand, the trial court may again deny Moragne’s motion if his allegation is conclusively refuted by record attachments. If it cannot be, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claim.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moragne v. State, 777 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ppeals the trial court’s order that summarily denies his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. This is the second time that the trial court has summarily denied the motion. See Moragne v. State, 761 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Once again, we conclude that the record attachments do not conclusively refute Mr. Moragne’s claim. It appears that the trial court may misunderstand the nature of Mr. Moragne’s claim. He was convicted of grand theft auto. Ther…
-
Carter v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2020)…ry was not provided an alibi defense jury instruction. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request a jury instruction on a defendant’s alibi defense is a cognizable claim for post- conviction relief. See Moragne v. State, 761 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Although it was error to fail to request the alibi jury instruction, any prejudice is speculative. The record reflects that the jury was instructed on weighing the evidence and evaluating witness testimony. An al…
Authorities Cited
- Lenoir v. State, 741 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)