DAVID SUGGS, 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 the denial of most postconviction relief claims but reversed and remanded two claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to adequately question a juror during voir dire and failure to investigate exculpatory witnesses.
Two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—one for inadequate voir dire questioning of a juror and one for failure to investigate exculpatory witnesses—are facially sufficient and warrant an evidentiary hearing, while all other postconviction claims are properly denied.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for inadequate voir dire questioning of a prospective juror is facially sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing when the…
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate or present exculpatory witnesses is facially sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing when the…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Suggs appealed a trial court's summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising ni…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
COVINGTON, Judge.
David Suggs appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of postconviction relief as to all claims contained in the motion except two that we believe warrant additional consideration. In his first claim for relief, Mr. Suggs alleges a colorable claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for lack of diligence in questioning a juror, Ms. Chaplin, during voir dire. See Monson v. State, 750 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Lambrix v. State, 559 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla.1990). In his ninth claim for relief, Mr. Suggs alleges a colorable claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call two exculpatory witness. See Honors v. State, 752 So. 2d 1234, 1235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509, 514-15 (Fla.1999). Because these two claims are facially sufficient and the record does not show “conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order [is] reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing,” Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D), as to these issues. See also Waters v. State, 779 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)
- Cary Michael Lambrix v. State, 559 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1990)
- Honors v. State, 752 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Johnson v. State, 779 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Perry v. State, 779 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Monson v. State, 750 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)