KERRY L. AUSTIN, 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.
Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850 but permitted appellant to amend his motion to properly identify three witnesses whose testimony could have exculpated him.
A Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call witnesses must adequately identify those witnesses and describe their testimony, but may be amended if initially facially insufficient.
[1] A Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must identify witnesses by name and describe the substance of their testimony within the motion itself, tho…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Kerry Austin sought post-conviction relief claiming his trial counsel failed to call three witnesses whose testimony would have exculpated h…
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 Amendment Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm an order denying Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
We note, however, Appellant’s claim that counsel failed to call three witnesses whose testimony would have exculpated him. The trial court correctly found this claim to be facially insufficient because Appellant failed to adequately identify the potential witnesses. Nevertheless, Appellant did sufficiently describe the substance of their testimony in his memorandum of law in support of his motion, and Appellant’s brief, filed in this court, establishes then-complete identity by full name. Because Appellant’s motion before the trial court did not contain the required information, the court did not err in denying relief on this claim. However, on remand, Appellant should be permitted to amend his motion accordingly. Therefore, as to that portion of ground two, we affirm, without prejudice to Appellant filing an amended rule 3.850 motion within twenty days from the date of this decision identifying the complete names of his witnesses, the substance of the witnesses’ testimony, an explanation as to how the omission of their testimony affected the outcome of the trial, and the facts supporting these witnesses’ testimony.,
DELL, STONE, and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ct. In all murder and manslaughter cases, the jury must be instructed as to the definitions of justifiable and excusable homicide. See Hall v. State, 677 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), review granted, 687 Sd.2d 1303 (Fla.1997); Thurston v. State, 762 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Failure to give the justifiable and excusa [*1280] ble homicide instruction is fundamental error, see Van Loan v. State, 736 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), even if the defendant did not request the instruction because the jury m…
-
Richardson v. State, 818 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ful acts.” Philippe v. State, 795 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). See Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1991); Damoulakis v. State, 814 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Smith v. State, 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Thurston v. State, 762 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Here, the trial court failed to so instruct the jury. It is the court’s responsibility to instruct the jury properly on the definitions of excusable and justifiable attempted homicide. Van Loan v. State, 736 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d…
-
Franco v. State, 901 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…fined by what it is not). Our prior cases addressing this issue are consistent with this reading. Avila v. State, 745 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (finding fundamental error where jury was not fully instructed on manslaughter); Thurston v. State; 762 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversing conviction where the jury was not instructed on justifiable and excusable homicide at all and where the state conceded that this was fundamental error). The supreme court has recently answered a certified question whi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence