THOMAS PATTERSON, 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.
Thomas Patterson appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirmed the denial of two grounds but reversed and remanded on the third ground, which alleged counsel's failure to investigate and call four neighborhood witnesses who could have impeached the state's evidence.
The court held that Patterson stated a facially sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on the third ground because he provided detailed identification of the witnesses, described the substance of their testimony, and explained how their omission prejudiced the trial outcome. The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing, as counsel's tactical decisions regarding witness calls are generally inappropriate determinations without such a hearing.
[1] A facially sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to call a witness requires alleging the witness's identity, the substance of their test…
[2] A motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness is facially sufficient when it identifies the witness, states their testimony would have…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Patterson is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the trial court can provide portions of the record that conclusively refute his claim.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing summary denial of Rule 3.850 motions and the threshold for defendant to obtain a hearing on ineffective assistance claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatterson was convicted by jury of second-degree murder on November 19, 1998, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The state presented testimony from t…
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 Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Thomas Patterson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, he alleged three grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We affirm without discussion on the first two grounds, but we reverse and remand for further proceedings on the third ground. On November 19, 1998, a jury convicted Patterson of second-degree murder. The court sentenced him to life in prison. In ground three of his motion, Patterson alleged that the State presented the testimony of two witnesses who implicated him in the murder of a neighborhood drug dealer. He alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate four other witnesses from the neighborhood and for failing to call them to testify at trial.
The trial court denied this claim on the basis that Patterson failed to describe the substance of the witnesses’ testimony or explain how the testimony would have made a difference at trial.
The trial court also concluded that defense counsel did not call one of the witnesses to testify because the witness refused to answer particular questions at the discovery deposition.
In his motion, Patterson provided in detail the identity of the witnesses. He also described the substance of their testimony by alleging what they observed the day of the murder and what they could testify to at trial. Last, he explained how the omission of their testimony prejudiced the outcome of the trial. Patterson claimed that the witnesses’ testimony would have impeached the State’s witnesses, refuted the State’s witnesses’ testimony, and shown that other people were involved in the death of the victim, thereby creating reasonable doubt that he committed the murder.
Therefore, Patterson stated a facially sufficient claim. See Odom v. State, 770 So. 2d 195, 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Patterson is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the trial court can provide portions of the record that conclusively refute his claim. See id. In addition, the trial court concluded that defense counsel’s failure to call a witness for trial was tactical. Such a determination is generally inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing. Green v. State, 827 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing on this claim or provide record attachments that demonstrate that Patterson is not entitled to relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ciambrone v. State, 128 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…record, we cannot conclude these attachments conclusively refute Ciambrone’s claim that evidence the victim hurt himself at or near the time he died would undermine confidence in the outcome. See, e.g., McCann, 854 So. 2d at 791; Patterson v. State, 845 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In Ground VII, Ciambrone alleged her trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting several available witnesses who were found by her plea attorney and who could offer testimony that would have supported Ciambrone’s defen…
-
State v. Patterson, 966 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…viction was affirmed on direct appeal, Mr. Patterson filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Mr. Patterson alleged three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Patterson v. State, 845 So. 2d 311, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The third claim was based on the alleged omission of counsel to call witnesses at trial. Id. at 312. Mr. Patterson alleged that two State witnesses implicated him in the murder of Mr. Dunn, a neighborhood drug dealer. Id. Mr…
-
Americo Antonio Colon v. State, 907 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…PSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Section 893.135(l)(k)(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). . An order dated May 5, 2003 had already appointed the public defender’s office. . See, Byrden v. State, 847 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Patterson v. State, 845 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jones v. State, 637 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Odom v. State, 770 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Green v. State, 827 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)