LAWRENCE FRANKLIN MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 post-conviction relief on four ineffective assistance of counsel claims but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on a Miranda suppression claim where the record did not conclusively demonstrate the defendant was entitled to no relief.
A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion when the record does not conclusively demonstrate the defendant is entitled to no relief.
[1] Where a trial court denies a post-conviction motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the motion and record must conclusively demonstrate that the defendant is e…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence Martin appealed the denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising five claims of ineffective assis…
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
WELLS, Judge.
Lawrence Martin appeals the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Martin raised five claims in his motion, arguing: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform defendant of the elements of each offense to which he pled guilty; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform defendant of the minimum or maximum penalties; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to a factual basis for the plea; (4) Martin’s mental problems precluded him from understanding the proceedings; and (5) trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress statements given to the police after his arrest, but before he was given Miranda1 warnings.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on claim 3 only, and thereafter denied relief on all the claims.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief as to claims 1 through 4. As to claim 5, we remand for an evidentiary hearing because the record fails to conclusively demonstrate that Martin is entitled to no relief, and do so with instructions that Martin be granted leave to amend or supplement this claim. See Groover v. State, 703 So. 2d 1035, 1038 (Fla.1997) (confirming that where a trial court denies a motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the motion and the record must conclusively demonstrate that the defendant is entitled to no relief); Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 1990)(same).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions.
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Roberts v. State, 568 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1990)
- Groover v. State, 703 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1997)