VERNON KEMP, 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 appellant's motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion for post-conviction relief when the motion alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a witness with e…
[2] A defendant is entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel if there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of…
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 intelligenceAppellant claimed his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness who could offer exculpatory testimony. The trial court denied the …
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 Exculpatory Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review the order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief and find that the trial court erred in summarily denying appellant’s motion. Appellant’s motion alleged the ineffectiveness of his defense counsel for failing to call a witness who would offer exculpatory testimony. This claim was not conclusively refuted by the exhibits attached to the state’s response and expressly incorporated in the trial court’s order. Therefore, we reverse the order denying relief on this claim and remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of further record support.
Appellant was charged with one count of aggravated battery. Appellant claims he informed his attorney prior to trial that witness, David Dowed, could offer exculpatory testimony for him and yet his lawyer failed to call the witness. Based on the extent of the record presently before this court, the failure to call this witness, who appellant claims could offer exculpatory testimony, may have affected the outcome of the case. See Davis v. State, 627 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). A defendant is entitled to relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel where there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
On remand, the trial court is directed either to attach further record excerpts supporting its order of denial or to conduct an evidentiary hearing to confirm appellant advised counsel of his exculpatory witness, and, if so, why trial counsel failed to call the alleged witness. If trial counsel’s performance was deficient, the trial court must then make a determination, based on a complete review of the trial transcript, whether there is a reasonable probability that counsel’s performance resulted in prejudice pursuant to the standard announced in Strickland.
FARMER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Davis v. State, 627 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)