LARRY CORNELIUS, 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 affirmed summary denial of two ineffective assistance of counsel claims but reversed and remanded two others because the trial court's attachments did not conclusively refute allegations regarding failure to investigate a co-defendant witness and failure to allow the defendant to testify.
A trial court's summary denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be reversed and remanded when the state's attachments do not conclusively refute legally and factually sufficient allegations.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be reversed when the state's record attachments do not conclusively refute legally and fac…
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 intelligenceLarry Cornelius appealed a trial court order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief based on four claims of ineffective assistance of…
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 Standard For Ineffective Assistance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Larry Cornelius, appeals the trial court order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief alleging four claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm as to grounds one and four, but reverse and remand as to grounds two and three.
Ground two is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate and call to trial as a witness Appellant’s co-defendant, Jason Edge. Appellant’s allegations were legally and factually sufficient, and were not conclusively refuted by the state’s attachment of a probable cause affidavit alleging what the co-defendant told a detective. Ground three is a claim of failure of counsel to allow Appellant to testify at trial on his own behalf. It, too, is legally and factually sufficient. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1996). The trial court’s attachment of portions of the record identified in the state’s response did not conclusively refute these two claims.
We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s summary denial of grounds one and four, but reverse and remand the summary denial of grounds two and three, for either attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting these claims, or an evidentiary hearing.
POLEN, C.J., STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1996)