PAUL ALEXANDER CLAYTON, 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.
Paul Clayton challenges the denial of his post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call an alibi witness at his drug conviction trial. The appellate court affirmed the denial of two grounds but reversed and remanded on the alibi witness claim because the trial court's factual findings were undermined by discrepancies in the witness address.
The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of the alibi witness ineffective assistance claim because the record did not conclusively rebut Clayton's allegation, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing if the trial court record does not conclusively demonstrate that counsel's performance was not deficient or that the defendant was not prejudiced.
[1] A postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call an alibi witness is facially sufficient if the defendant provides the witness's nam…
[2] A trial court's attachments to an order denying a postconviction motion must conclusively rebut the defendant's claims to avoid the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.
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“Clayton presented a facially sufficient postconviction claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to call an alibi witness at trial.”
Establishes that Clayton met the threshold requirement for raising an ineffective assistance claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClayton was convicted after jury trial of sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school. He claimed his c…
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 Alibi Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Paul Alexander Clayton challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without comment, the summary denial of two of the grounds for relief presented in Clayton’s motion. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order summarily denying the remaining ground, and we remand for further proceedings.
According to his motion, Clayton was convicted, after jury trial, of sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school. Clayton alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to call his alibi witness at trial. Clayton further alleged that he provided counsel with the name of his roommate, Eddie Fullwally, Jr., and the address of his roommate, 225 Colorado Avenue, Lakeland. He claimed that Fullwally was available to testify and that he would have testified that Clayton was at the Lakeland residence “showering and getting ready for dinner at the time of the alleged drug sale in Bartow.” Clayton alleged that he was not arrested at the time of the offense, but was arrested at a later date.
Clayton presented a facially sufficient postconviction claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to call an alibi witness at trial. See Jacobs v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S319, 320-321 (Fla. June 24, 2004). The trial court denied the motion, finding that the trial court record demonstrated that Fullwally was not at the address Clayton provided. The trial court attached portions of the record showing that the State attempted to subpoena Fullwally for deposition but were unable to do so because the address listed did not exist. However, the address on the State subpoena was 225 Colorado Street, not Colorado Avenue. In his motion, Clayton alleges that he advised counsel that Fullwally’s address was 225 Colorado Avenue. Attached to the trial court’s order is Clayton’s amended discovery disclosure which listed Fullwally’s address as 225 Colorado Avenue.
Thus, we conclude that the attachments to the trial court’s order do not refute Clayton’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call Fullwally as an alibi witness. On remand, if the trial court record does not conclusively rebut Clayton’s claim, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter. See Jacobs, 29 Fla. L. Weekly at S321.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
NORTHCUTT and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Versiah M. Taylor v. State, 984 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…’s non-appearance] through other means.” Neither fact relied on by the trial court conclusively shows that appellant is entitled to no relief on grounds one and two. See generally Brown v. State, 892 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Clayton v. State, 884 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In grounds seven and eight, appellant alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to protect appellant’s right to a speedy trial, affording the state additional time to prepare a case that was not based on any substan…