ALBERT BANKS, 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 appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for refusing to allow him to testify was legally and factually sufficient, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant, convicted of attempted murder and shooting into a building, filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of co…
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 Strickland V. Washington Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Albert Banks appeals the trial court order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand on ground two of that motion, and affirm the summary denial of relief on the remaining grounds.
Appellant was convicted of attempted first degree murder, three counts of attempted second degree murder and shooting into a building. He appealed to this court, which issued an en banc affirmance in Banks v. State, 691 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 699 So. 2d 1371 (1997). Appellant filed this motion for post conviction relief raising six grounds. Ground two alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for refusing to allow him to testify in his own defense. An alibi defense was presented.
We conclude that this claim was legally and factually sufficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Indeed, to the extent that the state argued that this suggested a tactical or strategic decision of trial counsel, we acknowledge the settled authority that such claims are not properly resolved without an evidentiary hearing. See Walker v. State, 792 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
The remaining portions of ground two, and the other grounds asserted in this rule 3.850 motion were legally and factually insufficient. We affirm their summary denial.
REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleveland Glover v. State, 996 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…Neal’s testimony would have been “problematic” and that the decision not to call him “was not unreasonable.” However, this argument goes to trial strategy, which is a matter that cannot be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. See Banks v. State, 825 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Reversed, and Remanded. WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Jarvis Harvard v. State, 46 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ed as a principal. See generally Brown v. State, 892 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Jimenez v. State, 754 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). As alleged, the claim is sufficiently plead and not refuted by the record furnished. See, e.g., Banks v. State, 825 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We affirm the denial of the remaining claims without discussion. POLEN, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Albert Banks v. State, 691 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Walker v. State, 792 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)