WILLIE R. SINGLETON, 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 the trial court's summary denial of the motion was improper regarding the claim of ineffective assistance for failing to call impeachment witnesses.
Appellant argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial comments on his silence and for failing to interview/call impeachm…
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 Impeachment Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Willie R. Singleton, appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We address only two of the grounds asserted by Singleton. See Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660 (Fla.1994). First, Singleton’s motion argued that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s improper comments on Singleton’s silence during closing argument. The trial court’s summary denial does not address this argument. It appears that, in closing, the prosecutor merely commented on statements by a State witness, who repeated Singleton’s incriminating statements in court. However, we are unable to conclusively determine that based on the current record attachments.
Next, Singleton’s motion argued that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to interview, depose, and call to. testify four witnesses who would have substantially impeached Appellee’s primary witness. In view of the importance of such state witness’ testimony, and the alleged testimony of the four witnesses identified by Singleton, the trial court’s record attachments do not show conclusively that Singleton is entitled to no relief. Thus, we are compelled to reverse and remand for attachments that do conclusively show Singleton’s non-entitlement to relief or for an evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to attach additional portions of the record conclusively refuting Singleton’s claims, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on these claims. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.