EDWARD MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Affirmative Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order summarily denying a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850. We conclude that the trial court erred on one point. The allegation that defense counsel faded to present an available defense to the charge of robbery was sufficient to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See McKinney v. State, 722 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The records attached to the order show that there was ample evidence the defendant had committed the act, but that does not refute the defendant’s argument that his lawyer should have presented an affirmative defense. Accordingly, we reverse on this point and remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of records conclusively refuting the claim. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
BOOTH, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…(“To achieve the best balance of a litigant’s right of access to courts and the need of the courts to prevent repetitious and frivolous pleadings, it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond....”); Long v. State, 793 So. 2d 1141, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Norton v. State, 745 So. 2d 495, 495 (Fla. 1st DCA [*480] 1999); see also Jackson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 790 So. 2d 398, 399^00 (Fla.2001) (barring Mr. Jackson from filing any future pro se petitions in the Florida Suprem…
-
Petty v. State, 926 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…has consistently reversed trial court orders which bar future pro se filings that are imposed without providing the required notice and opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Long v. State, 793 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). [*446] On appeal the appellant argues, and the State concedes, that no such notice and opportunity to respond was provided. Accordingly, that part of the trial court’s order barring future pro se filings is REVERSED and the caus…
-
Orin A. Mims v. State, 994 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…urt, it must address the merits of the claims advanced by the litigant and determine that they are frivolous before commencing down the road to bar future filings.”); see also Morgan v. State, 983 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Longv. State, 793 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). . We applaud the dissent’s encomium to Clarence Gideon. See infra pp. 1236-37. We also agree that all too often, prisoners abuse their postconviction rights. See infra p. 1238. The dissent makes a fine case that Mr. Mims should…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McKINNEY v. State, 722 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)