JAMES R. WILLIAMS, 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 a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel warrants an evidentiary hearing when specific facts demonstrate deficient performance and prejudice, and are not conclusively rebutted by the record.
An inmate appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, raising seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. One claim al…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James R. Williams, a pro se inmate, appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Williams entered a plea to battery on a law enforcement officer and was ultimately sentenced to a 5-year prison term as a prison releasee reoffender. In his motion for postconviction relief, along with the supplements thereto, William raised seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse the summary denial of one claim, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena electronic surveillance tapes of the incident that led to his conviction, and affirm the balance.
Williams contends that if his attorney would have subpoenaed the bank’s videotape, it would have shown that Williams did not batter the officer, and instead, the victim police officer battered Williams. The state does not refute Williams’ allegation.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of this claim for an evidentiary hearing thereon. See Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255, 1259 (Fla.l990)(explaining that “a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will warrant an evidentiary hearing where the movant alleges ‘specific facts which are not conclusively rebutted by the record and which demonstrate a deficiency in performance that prejudiced the defendant’ ”).
KLEIN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.