DONALD WILSON, 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 reversed and remanded a denial of a Rule 3.850 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel where the trial court failed to attach supporting documents or hold an evidentiary hearing on claims of counsel's failure to suppress an involuntary statement and inadequate investigation.
When a defendant raises colorable claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a Rule 3.850 motion, the trial court must either attach documents refuting the claims or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] Trial court must attach documents refuting ineffective assistance claims or conduct evidentiary hearing when Rule 3.850 motion raises colorable allegations.
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 intelligenceDonald Wilson filed a Rule 3.850 motion alleging that his retained counsel failed to suppress an involuntary statement obtained before Miranda warning…
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 Involuntary Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In his timely motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, Donald Wilson alleges that he would not have entered a plea and the outcome of the proceedings would probably have been different if he had not been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, his motion alleges he informed retained counsel that an earlier request for counsel was ignored during police interrogation; that, while in custody and without counsel, a statement was elicited before he was given Miranda warnings; and that .the statement was involuntary. The motion alleges that defense counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the statement, failed to depose any witnesses, failed to investigate a viable self-defense theory adequately, and so failed to. give advice about the state’s case against him that comported with minimum professional standards. Finally, the motion contains allegations that the plea was involuntary for reasons like those alleged in Luma v. State, 736 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Nothing was attached to the order denying the motion that would refute any of these claims. We therefore remand for such attachments, or for an evidentiary hearing on each claim. The order is otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED in PART, REVERSED in PART, and REMANDED.
KAHN, BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.