LEROY BYRDEN, 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.
Leroy Byrden appeals a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed the summary denial of one claim regarding trial counsel's failure to call an alibi witness while affirming the denial of four other claims, finding the record did not conclusively demonstrate Byrden was entitled to no relief on the omitted witness claim.
The court held that Byrden's claim regarding counsel's failure to call the daughter was legally sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing because the record did not conclusively demonstrate he was entitled to no relief, requiring reversal of the summary denial. The court affirmed the summary denials of the other four ineffective assistance claims without discussion.
[1] A post-conviction relief motion must be summarily denied only when the attached record conclusively demonstrates that the movant is entitled to no relief.
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on the failure to call a witness are legally sufficient when the witness's testimony could have significantly impacted the…
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“Appellant complains that his attorney was ineffective because he failed to call at trial the victim's adult daughter, who was available to testify. According to appellant, his attorney was aware from the daughter's deposition that, although the daughter had encountered (and said hello to) the robber, she was unable to identify appellant in a photo spread.”
States the factual basis for Byrden's ineffective assistance claim regarding the failure to call a key witness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceByrden was convicted of armed robbery based on positive identification by the victim. Byrden presented an alibi defense claiming he was in another cit…
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 Witness Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his motion seeking post- conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective in five respects. As to all save one, we affirm without discussion. We are, however, constrained to reverse the summary denial of the remaining claim because the portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order do not demonstrate conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery. The state’s case consisted of a positive identification by the victim. Appellant presented an alibi defense, claiming that he was in another city at the time of the robbery. Appellant complains that his attorney was ineffective because he failed to call at trial the victim’s adult daughter, who was available to testify. According to appellant, his attorney was aware from the daughter’s deposition that, although the daughter had encountered (and said hello to) the robber, she was unable to identify appellant in a photo spread. Appellant further claims that the daughter gave a description of the man which differed greatly from that of appellant. The daughter supposedly described the man as slightly taller than five feet six inches, and of medium build, whereas appellant was six feet one inch tall and weighed 287 pounds. According to appellant, because the state’s case rested entirely upon the victim’s identification, had his attorney called the daughter, her testimony would have had a significant impact on the victim’s credibility, and resulted in a different outcome. Such allegations are legally sufficient. See, e.g., Terrero v. State, 839 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); English v. State, 830 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Because the portions of the record attached to the order denying relief do not demonstrate conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief, we are constrained to reverse. On remand, the trial court may again deny relief if it attaches to its order portions of the record demonstrating conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief. Otherwise, it shall hold an evidentiary hearing. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. Ferrer, 884 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Having considered the appellants’ response to this Court’s order dated August 20, 2004, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002); Russo v. Ford Motor Co., 847 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). ERVIN, BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Americo Antonio Colon v. State, 907 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…01 So. 2d 271, 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). AFFIRMED. THOMPSON 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).…
Authorities Cited
- Terrero v. State, 839 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- English v. State, 830 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)