RUBEN JUNIOR BAILEY, 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 erred in summarily denying ground four of the motion without addressing the specific issue raised, but affirmed the denial of ground seven as facially insufficient.
Appellant appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on eight grounds. The trial …
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 Hearsay Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Ruben Junior Bailey appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Bailey raised eight grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm without comment as to the denial of grounds one, two, three, five, six, and eight. We reverse as to ground four. We affirm, but write to clarify as to ground seven.
In ground four of his motion, Bailey claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on attempted robbery, as a lesser-included offense of armed robbery. Because Bailey raised similar arguments in grounds one and four of his motion, the trial court combined the grounds. The trial court relied on the reasoning in ground one of its order to summarily deny ground four of Bailey’s motion. However, the reasoning in ground one of the trial court’s order does not apply to ground four of Bailey’s motion. As a result, the trial court failed to address the issue raised in ground four of Bailey’s motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider ground four. We affirm as to ground seven of his motion. We note that the trial court’s order had a specific ruling for ground seven. However, this ruling did not address the actual argument made by Bailey in this ground. We affirm the denial of this ground because Bailey’s argument is facially insufficient. Bailey failed to allege, nor does the record provide, any support as to how the alleged testimony of the witness, Eduveha Bennett, would have been admissible at trial. See § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Good v. State, 936 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…s misinterpretation by filing a timely motion for rehearing but to no avail. The postconviction court denied the motion for rehearing. Good has filed a facially sufficient motion, and the postconviction court must consider it. See Bailey v. State, 911 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Bernal v. State, 892 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Good’s motion and remand for the postconviction court to consider the motion on the merits. Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA and WALLA…